Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

STAGGERED HOLIDAYS.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that some firms find difficulty in staggering holidays for their workpeople without a loss of production; and whether he will consider that closing for a week's rest may be the best in the long run?

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the complete closing of selected works during successive weeks as an alternative to keeping works going uninterruptedly by allowing a proportion of workers off in successive weeks and so diminishing materially the effective supervision of the work and lowering the proportionate out put; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): It is not possible to lay down any rigid rule as to the most advantageous way of arranging the week's holiday. The circumstances of each case must be considered. I am arranging for the area boards to be brought into consultation in the various localities.

Mr. Price: Is it not a fact that there may be a decrease in production if holidays are staggered? Is it not better on the whole in certain instances to arrange for a clear week?

Mr. Bevin: No, I have explained that you cannot have a universal scheme. It may be that some of the works are on such priority work that even a week's holiday may be difficult to give. In some cases we cannot afford to stop work on the machine tools, and there must be staggering. In others it may be that the type of work is of such a character and

the need for overhaul and renovation of such a kind that a week's stop may be preferable, but I must leave it to be adjusted by those concerned.

Mr. Thorne: Will there be any objection to the workers and employers getting together to arrange it?

Mr. Bevin: That is what I have asked them to do. I have also asked the area boards to get into consultation, so that the employers and trade unions may be advised of the urgency of the work upon which they are engaged.

TEXTILE WORKERS (TRANSFER).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour, whether he can make a statement as to the transfer of labour, to other employment, from Lancashire textile mills, closed as the result of the concentration of industry?

Mr. Bevin: Statistics are not yet available showing the transfer of labour to other employment from the Lancashire textile mills, but the unemployment register in Lancashire is continuing to fall and I have every reason to believe that the labour released from those mills which have closed is being absorbed rapidly.

ESSENTIAL WORK ORDERS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister of Labour the number of industrial organisations which he has so far scheduled under the Essential Work Order?

Mr. Bevin: Up to 2nd May, 1941, the number of undertakings scheduled under the Essential Work (General Provisions) Order, was 1,299 and the number scheduled under the Essential Work (Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing) Order was 284, making a total of 1,583. The Merchant Navy has been scheduled as a whole by the Essential Work (Merchant Navy) Order, which comes into force on 26th May.

Mr. Simmonds: Can my right hon. Friend say that in all districts where he has scheduled undertakings there is a complete organisation, including the local appeals board?

Mr. Bevin: I would not say that the whole thing is absolutely complete, but it is being built up daily.

RETIRED SCIENTISTS AND TECHNICIANS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister of Labour whether he maintains a Register of retired scientists and other technical men who offer their services?

Mr. Bevin: Persons with the requisite scientific or technical qualifications, whether retired or not, are eligible for enrolment on the Central Register maintained by my Department. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the leaflet which explains the scope and functions of this Register.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that there has been no appeal to retired scientists and technical men to place their names on this Register, and that the Register is running very dry with regard to certain categories of scientists? Would my right hon. Friend, therefore, consider making an appeal to retired men or women to enter their names on the Register?

Mr. Bevin: My predecessor made it clear when the Register was established that it applied to every person of all categories of scientists, whether retired or not, and there has never been any limitation. In fact, I was not aware that scientists ever retired, but there has been no distinction drawn between retired and unretired. In order to get over the difficulty about technicians, scientists and others of whom there is a shortage, an overhaul is going on in all the Departments in order to introduce a little dilution into the professions.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Does this apply to constituents of whom I know who are being called up and are doing donkey work in some Service or other, and who obviously might be usefully employed elsewhere?

Mr. Bevin: As I say, a committee is going through the whole question of where these people have been placed, sorting them out and trying to use them in proper places. Even some of the donkey work may be scientific.

Sir F. Fremantle: It may be scientific, but how are we to deal with these cases?

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of engineers and other people with scientific attainments have been on the Register

for over 18 months, and not the faintest effort has been made to use their services?

Mr. Bevin: I do not accept that. I am constantly hearing these general statements without a single fact to back them up. The bulk of the people on the Central Register are in employment, but they have volunteered to help the State in any capacity. When those responsible for the Central Register are asked for a person, it would obviously be stupid to take a man away from a job which he is doing satisfactorily and merely put him somewhere else. It is not an unemployment Register. It is a Register of offers of service, and I can assure the House that it has been combed through time and time again.

Sir F. Fremantle: How are we to deal with the case of a man, of which I can give instances, who is tied down in a particular Department and is doing work which the Department thinks is useful, but is not employing his scientific abilities?

Mr. Bevin: If hon. Members know people whose services are being misused and will inform me, I will have the cases dealt with, but I cannot deal with generalisations.

TRADE UNIONS (FOREIGN MEMBERS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will explain the arrangements now existing for Germans and Austrians working in industry to become members of appropriate British trade unions and also of the German trade union; what deductions from income are made for the latter, and to what purposes the money is applied?

Mr. Bevin: I understand that certain arrangements have been made under the auspices of the Trades Union Congress for enabling foreign workers in industry to become members of the appropriate British trade union and also of their own national trade union group if such exists and is recognised by the T.U.C. My information is that these arrangements apply generally both to Allied nationals and to Austrians and Germans and that they include agreed voluntary membership contributions to the British union concerned, usually on the lowest scale permitted by its rules, and to the foreign


trade union group. I am not in a position to give more detailed information, but I understand that the whole scheme has been carefully worked out by the T.U.C. in conjunction with the International Federation of Trade Unions, which is operating from this country. The constitutions of the foreign trade union groups concerned before becoming operative are approved by the T.U.C. and the International Federation of Trade Unions.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Does that agreement extend also to aliens who are neither Germans nor Allied nationals, but neutrals, as, for example, Spaniards?

Mr. Bevin: The matter is governed, as I understand it, by the question whether a foreign country establishes a trade union group here through the International Federation of Trade Unions. I have not been in these discussions, and I cannot give any further details.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

EVACUATION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the use, or if necessary, the erection of further hutted camps for the reception of mothers and children, or children alone, in areas where they can be reasonably free from the mental and physical disturbance of enemy bombing?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I hope that further huts will be erected to meet a variety of needs in reception areas. The extent to which huts can be provided in these areas must, however, depend on the available resources of labour and materials, and I think it unlikely that these resources would be used to the best advantage in building camps for mothers and children.

Sir T. Moore: As those camps so far tried out have been an outstanding success, affording as they do accommodation for teachers, nurses and so on, will my right hon. Friend make every effort to extend them as far as the material and labour are available?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir; that is implicit in my Answer.

Mr. James Griffiths: As I gather from the Reply that the right hon. Gentleman

is turning down this proposal, or, at any rate, holding out no hope, to build huts, may I ask whether the Government are taking a long view of the evacuation problem and whether the problem of providing working-class houses is not becoming serious?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, but the issue in the Question related to hutted camps. It may be that we shall have to pool accommodation for all purposes, but that is a different issue.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in conjunction with the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security, the large-scale provision of at least improvised camps for people from heavily bombed towns until such time as our fighters are able to average 22 enemy bombers a night?

Mr. Brown: I think that question had better be put down.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my right hen. Friend" organise a mobile unit which can put these people under canvas during the summer months, so that there is not a trek out when there is an air raid?

Mr. Brown: I was asked about camps for particular purposes. There has been a large provision of centres for children, but the Question also asked about mothers and children. It is much easier to provide for unaccompanied children than for mothers and children. My answer was confined to the specific Question.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether arrangements have been made for the evacuation from London of the refugees from Gibraltar, especially children?

Mr. Brown: Accommodation of a type suitable for the reception of large family groups is not available except in London, and the mothers of the children would not consent to their evacuation unaccompanied by themselves.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people are in an area which has been subjected to very heavy bombardment, so that it is most desirable that they should be got out of it if possible?

Mr. Brown: This problem has given us, perhaps, more difficulty than any other


single problem that has been put on our shoulders by the war. We have organised 29 large centres, at which we have to arrange special feeding. We are providing at all of them measures of protection against air raids We have done our best, and it is quite clear that the only way to handle this difficult problem is, as we are doing it, by large units.

Sir William Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large blocks of buildings in my constituency have been taken for this purpose, and does he not think he could get these people accommodation together somewhere outside London, so as not to disturb many people who are living in London because they are doing national work?

Mr. Brown: I am aware of the difficulties which my hon. Friend has pointed out to us. It is, however, quite impossible to billet these particular refugees separately in small houses in the country. There is always the difficulty that there must be special feeding arrangements. I have no doubt that the decisions we have made concerning them were the right decisions, and on the whole they seem to be settling down very happily.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minster of Health whether he can reconsider his previous decision and now make Romford and Hornchurch into evacuation areas?

Mr. Brown: The case for altering the classification of evacuation, neutral and reception areas is kept under constant review. The position as regards these two areas remains the same as set out in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 23rd January last.

Mr. Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recent events have increased the demand in these areas for the evacuation of the children?

Mr. Brown: I am aware that there is a certain desire for it in hundreds of other areas, but there is a limit to the billeting accommodation available in the reception areas in this country.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister take an early opportunity of stating upon what principle the Government decide whether an area shall be an evacuation, a neutral or a reception area, as we are constantly being asked about it, and I think a statement would be of advantage to the House?

Mr. Brown: It would also be of advantage to me to make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the Government policy that people should stay put in heavy raids, it is his policy to discourage the evacuation of large towns at such times?

Mr. Brown: The Government believe that the people of this country will not consent to be driven from their duties, in whatever area these duties have to be performed, by enemy attack. But it is the Government's policy to facilitate the organised evacuation of the priority classes from evacuation areas, though it is not practicable to declare in advance as evacuable every area that may be liable to attack. In all cases, however, it is the concern of the Government to ensure proper provision for the homeless.

Mr. Lindsay: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has already stated that he did not know on what principle evacuation is carried out—

Mr. Brown: I really must correct that statement. I have said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Lindsay: It is within the recollection of my hon. Friends, but I will not press the point.

Mr. Brown: What I did say was that it would be an advantage to me and also to the House if I made a statement.

Mr. Lindsay: In view of the representations which have been made from many sides of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on this question, because he was reported to have said at Plymouth that it was not desirable to take action? A great many Members want to know if that is the case or not, because seven days afterwards a complete evacuation of the children there took place.

Mr. Brown: I cannot be held responsible for what is stated in reports. What happened at Plymouth is clear. I was investigating reception problems in the West Country at the time when the first big raid on Plymouth took place. I stopped there and attended the first meeting of the authorities concerned. The issue of evacuation was raised, and those concerned locally did not at that time desire it. My hon. Friend must under-


stand that mothers and fathers, as well as politicians, have some views about this matter.

PLACE NAMES (OBLITERATION).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that all over the country many names of places have not been properly erased but merely covered over by a board which can be ripped off or by paint which can be removed by petrol and so display the locality, he will give instructions that names of places are to be obliterated in a manner that does not allow of sub sequent disclosure by any means?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir.

WOMEN'S VOLUNTARY SERVICE.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Home Secretary whether members of the Women's Voluntary Service are free to express their political opinions and to engage in political activities when off duty, so long as they observe the limitations imposed upon the community, as a whole, in these respects, by law?

Sir T. Moore: asked the Home Secretary whether there is any regulation which forbids the free expression of political opinions by members of the Women's Voluntary Service when off duty?

Mr. H. Morrison: Except where the rules of a profession or trade to which an individual member of the Women's Voluntary Service belongs enjoin a measure of restraint, members of the society have, so far as I am aware, the same freedom of speech and action in regard to political matters as other members of the community.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the county commandants of this organisation that it is his view and the wish of the Government that they should be free to express their political views?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The matter has been discussed at the headquarters of the W.V.S., and I do not think there is any disagreement between them and myself.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is it clear that they should not be allowed to wear uniform

when taking part in political demonstrations?

Mr. Morrison: I think it is clear that, when they are on duty and in evening uniform, a certain amount of circumspection is desirable.

INTERNEES.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the misunderstandings which exist in the United States and elsewhere as to the character of aliens who have been temporarily interned in this country or in the Dominions, he will explain that such internment does not necessarily imply any stigma or disgrace, and that the subsequent release of the internee indicates that he has been subjected to a scrutiny which has satisfied His Majesty's Government that this can be done without prejudice to the national interest; and whether he will give an assurance that the same principle will be observed in the case of internees released for emigration?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity of stating once more that it has always been, and still is, the considered view of His Majesty's Government that the general measures of internment which it was necessary to take in the interests of national security were of a precautionary character and were not intended to imply, and did not in fact imply, any reflection upon any loyal and friendly alien who was interned in pursuance of general directions. With regard to the second and third parts of the Question, I can assure my hon. Friend that in no case has the release of an internee been authorised, whether for emigration or for any other reason, unless His Majesty's Government had reached the conclusion, after investigation, that the alien might be at liberty in this country without prejudice to the interests of national security.

Miss Rathbone: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he will, if possible, take immediate steps to ensure that his reply is made known in the United States of America and in Canada, so that the public there may not make any mistake about the character of persons who may emigrate there?

Mr. Morrison: No doubt the Suppletary Question of the hon. Lady will have the effect of indicating "American papers, please copy."

SOLDIER (ARREST BY POLICE).

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a case mentioned at Bow Street police court, on 25th April last, when it was stated by the legal representative of the police that a soldier, incapably drunk, was arrested in Argyle Street, and after his legs had given way under him was dragged through the streets by two police officers; and whether, with a view to safeguarding the dignity of His Majesty's uniform, he will give instructions that, when it is not possible or practical to summon a police ambulance in such cases, police officers are authorised to obtain a taximeter-cab, the cost of which to be borne subsequently by the guilty party?

Mr. H. Morrison: I entirely agree with the view of my hon. and gallant Friend that every step possible should be taken to safeguard the dignity of His Majesty's uniform. The instructions of the Metropolitan Police are that drunken men, arrested at a distance from a police station, must be conveyed by police van, and that a van must be used even for a short distance if the prisoner is violent or incapable. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that, in this case, the arrest took place at a distance of about a quarter of a mile from the police station. The police officers were of opinion that the prisoner was capable of walking to the police station. When, however, it became apparent that this was not the case, the journey was completed in a taxicab.

Colonel Evans: I am afraid there is some mistake, as my right hon. Friend has omitted to answer the point of my Question. Arising out of the answer which he has given, may I ask whether it is the case that these officers refused to take a taxicab for this purpose when first requested to do so by a member of the public, who was astounded at the scene, and that they consented to do so only when that member of the public offered to pay for the taxicab? Will my right hon. Friend give instructions that police officers should be authorised to take a

taxicab when an ambulance is not available?

Mr. Morrison: I have done so. I agree with the point that my hon. and gallant Friend is raising. There was a hiatus on this short journey. It is true that, as a result of the admirable and generous cooperation of a member of the public, help was given which solved the problem. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I have made suitable representations to the Commissioner. I think that the police did their best in this case.

PERSONNEL (REMUNERATION).

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to announce his decision upon the proposal submitted to him that the officers occupying a more responsible post in the Civil Defence services should receive increased remuneration?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am afraid that I must ask my hon. Friend to wait a little longer.

Sir A. Maitland: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities have been waiting long for a decision on this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of that, but it is the case also that other local authorities did not agree to the proposal. There is a difference of view among authorities, and even among Regions, which it is a little difficult to straighten out. Moreover, there is something else which will have to be straightened before this matter is settled. I assure my hon. Friend that I regard the matter as of some importance, but there are other matters in connection with Civil Defence which are more urgent.

Mr. Simmonds: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet accepted the principle, even though he may not be able to announce the details?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, that is a question which I must not answer.

NURSING RESERVE.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the shortage of trained nurses, what is the policy of the Government in calling up for service those who have registered their names, at the outbreak of war, on the Civil Nursing Reserve?

Mr. E. Brown: I am anxious to utilise the services of any trained nurse member of the Civil Nursing Reserve not already in employment, and, partly with this in view, I have recently extended the scope of the Reserve to cover almost every type of hospital, including certain special hospitals where the shortage of nurses is acute. Where a trained nurse has offered whole-time service without reservation as to place, regional nursing officers can ordinarily post her without difficulty. This cannot always be arranged, however, where the member's offer is restricted either to part-time service or to service in a particular locality, or in some other way. Such members are now being approached and asked to offer service not subject to these limitations, and the use to be made of their services will depend on the replies.

FIRE PREVENTION.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Home Secretary in what way, after the making of the Fire Prevention Orders, the arrangements for the provision of free steel helmets to fire-watchers and the grant of compensation for injuries sustained by them on duty were modified?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am glad that the hon. Member has given me this opportunity of looking further into the matter. I find that before the making of the Orders some local authorities were informed that they might be authorised to issue civilian steel helmets to volunteers who were or who undertook to become members of supplementary fire parties. Subsequently, local authorities generally were given to understand that issues would be on a more restricted basis. I must, of course, honour the earlier assurance, although, on reflection, I think that it would have been better if it had been made a condition of a free issue that the volunteer should accept certain definite obligations, like other part-time Civil Defence volunteers. I hope that all who have enrolled as members of supplementary fire parties and are in a position to do so will assist local authorities to establish an effective service by undertaking, like other part-time members of Civil Defence organisations, to perform not less than 48 hours' duty per month where their services may be of most use. It is the occupier's responsibility to provide free helmets for persons working at business premises who perform duties on these

premises under the Fire Prevention (Business Premises) Order.
As regards compensation, the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, in reply to a Question on 20th February by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), will be adhered to. Compensation for war service injuries will be made in accordance with the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme to all fire watchers who are duly enrolled or registered. In addition, those members of the local authority's Civil Defence organisation who undertake to do not less than 48 hours per month and to serve anywhere in the area of their local authority may receive an allowance in respect of loss of earnings. As a result, they will get their normal weekly earnings for a maximum period of 13 weeks, provided that these do not exceed the basic weekly pay of whole-time Civil Defence volunteers.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while there is a considerable number of elderly people and women who are quite prepared to give their services for 48 hours per month, many of them do not feel capable of being or willing to be sent to other parts of London with which they are not familiar? They are quite willing to give their services in their own district or neighbourhood, but are not prepared to go to other parts of London in order to do fire watching in districts with which they are not familiar?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that the undertaking would be, not to go to another part of London, but to serve anywhere within the Metropolitan borough in the case of the administrative county, as it is not quite so bad. Nevertheless, I hope the local authorities, in administering the Order,, will take account of exceptional cases of women with family responsibilities or of elderly people, and will administer the Order sensibly, and meet such cases as far as they can. With good will on both sides, it should be possible to cope with any difficulties.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction about it, and is he prepared to give instructions to local authorities which, if carried out, would give satisfaction?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider giving guidance, but it must not be too precise,


because one does not want the matter confused. I will consider whether I can give guidance which, at the same time, will not run away with the situation.

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the; hon. Member for the City of London can expect a reply to his letter of 21st March containing complaints with regard to a large number of Inland Revenue staffs at Empire House, E.C.2, engaged on fire-watching duties, to obtain food while on week-end duty; and whether the grievance complained of has now been remedied?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): To-day, Sir.

POLISH NEWSPAPER.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Home Secretary whether he has seen the unanimous statement of the Council of Ministers of the Polish Government that the activities of "Jestem Polakiem" are harmful to the British cause and should be condemned; and will he take steps to ban the publication of this paper, seeing that what injures the Polish cause must also injure Britain's?

Mr. H. Morrison: The powers under the Defence Regulations to exercise control over newspapers can be exercised only where I am satisfied that there has been a systematic publication of matter which is, in my opinion, calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue. After consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Information, I have come to the conclusion that I should not be justified, at any rate on the information before me at present, in taking action in respect of this publication.

Mr. Lipson: Would my right hon. Friend give further consideration to this matter, in view of the fact that the activity of this paper has been commended in the Nazi Press and that it is being freely circulated among the Polish serving men in this country?

Mr. Morrison: I will continue to keep the matter under review. The behaviour of the publication will be watched.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the

Polish authorities in this country that they should try to induce this paper to drop its anti-Jewish propaganda?

Mr. Morrison: The matter has already been under consideration by the Polish authorities, and it would appear that the action which the hon. Member now suggests has already been taken.

Mr. Mander: Would it not be better to treat this paper with the contempt it deserves, and not give it too much publicity?

Hon. Members: No.

RESCUE PARTIES (PERMISSIBLE LIGHT).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that there is clear understanding on the part of the police and the Civil Defence services as to the nature and volume of light permissible to rescue parties at night during air-raid and all-clear periods, respectively?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have no information which suggests that further guidance to the police and Civil Defence services in this matter is required, and no cases of difficulty under the existing procedure have been brought to my notice. I should, however, be happy to consider the matter further in the light of any information which my hon. Friend may be in a position to give me.

Mr. Simmonds: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that in several incidents in the Metropolitan area, where rescue parties have been working with permissible lights, residents nearby have pressed the police to take action, the police have done so and rescue work has stopped, thereby possibly preventing the rescue of some who would otherwise have been saved, and does he not think that it is a matter which requires general clarification?

Mr. Morrison: So far as is necessary, we maintain consultation with the police and the Civil Defence authorities to give them general guidance, but if you tied this matter up with the most meticulous degree of regulations, you would get into the realm of red tape in which nobody knows quite what to do. On the whole, it is. better settled on the spot between the police and the Civil Defence people.

LOOTING.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case at Bow Street, on 3rd May, of a member of the Auxiliary Fire Service who pleaded guilty to a charge of looting; and whether he will take steps to have members of the Auxiliary Fire Service, who have been found guilty of looting, transferred when they have served their sentence to duties in which the opportunity for looting is not so easy?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have seen reports in the Press on the case in question. The issue raised by my hon. Friend is for determination by the local authority concerned, and I am informed that it is the practice in London for a man to report back for duty after completion of his sentence. Careful consideration is then given to the question whether his services should be dispensed with or not, and, if he is retained, the nature of the duties which he should perform.

Mr. Culverwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the magistrate's remark to the district officer? It makes one wonder whether the authorities appreciate the contemptible nature of this offence. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is entirely wrong that a service which provides easy opportunities for looting should have restored to it men who have already committed that offence?

Mr. Morrison: There is a number of people whose records are open to question—who even have criminal records— who have done a first-class job in Civil Defence. I have sufficient faith in the London County Council—and I know their standards quite well—that they will consider this matter in the most careful way possible before putting men in the Service. I respect the opinions of magistrates, but on this matter I would rather take the opinion of the London County Council.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the degree of opportunity to be looked upon as a deterrent against these offences? Would it not be better to hold over those convicted the prospect of being retained in places where opportunities are easier rather than where opportunities are more rare?

Mr. Morrison: I think it would be the other way with the L.C.C.

SHELTERS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that large surplus supplies of cement are now available, he will at once encourage local authorities to strengthen materially their surface brick shelters by the application of a thick extra coating of cement and also by the use of a certain proportion of such metal as disused tramway lines, etc., as may be available, for strutting these and also basements now strutted with timber?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am in touch with the appropriate local authorities regarding the strengthening of brick surface shelters, but pending the result of certain experiments which I hope will be completed in the near future I do not propose to issue any general advice to local authorities on this subject. If my hon. Friend has in mind any particular local authority which is in need of urgent advice, I shall be glad to arrange for the appropriate Regional Technical Adviser to confer with them. As regards the strutting of basements, suitable instructions have already been given to local authorities but I am advised that, where timber strutting of a satisfactory design has already been installed, it is not necessary to replace it by steel, provided that it is strengthened with additional bracing where necessary.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that, in connection with recent raids on the North-East coast, there is a general opinion that if these improvements could have been effected, life and limb would have been saved?

Mr. Morrison: If I am given any specific information, I shall be glad to look into it. It is not too helpful to make representations on general impressions, and if I may say so, I do not think it is quite fair; but if any specific information is given, it shall be looked into carefully.

Mr. Adams: I will endeavour to be more fair in future.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Home Secretary what Regulations he has made with a view to closing unauthorised shelters?

Mr. Morrison: It has been decided to make a Defence Regulation enabling a Regional Commissioner to direct that the


use of shelters of this kind by the public shall be prevented or restricted in any manner that he may require if, in his opinion, that use involves dangers to safety or health. I may add that the Regulation is aimed not at persons who use the shelter but at those who encourage or permit their assembly

Mr. Lindsay: I am very glad to hear that the Regulation has now been made. May I ask whether it will be applied immediately to a shelter well known to the Regional Commissioner, where, I understand this morning, scabies has broken out? This is a case in point.

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the case, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Home Secretary how many of the new domestic shelters are distributed to households; and what steps he has taken to provide more deep shelters?

Mr. Morrison: As regards the first part of the Question, full delivery of all the components of the indoor shelter has only recently begun, and I regret that I am not in a position to give the information desired. As regards the second part of the Question, I explained fully, in my broadcast on 3rd November last, the general principles on which I am working: it would not be in the public interest to give details.

Mr. Lindsay: I do not want to press my right hon. Friend about the actual details, but do I understand that he is attempting to make provision not only for dispersal, but, wherever possible, for deep shelters?

Mr. Morrison: As I have said, we are quite ready to consider deep shelter proposals on their merits, but questions of labour supply, materials, and so on must be taken into account. There are also problems of morale connected with deep shelters. I think, moreover, that it ought to be indicated that, whereas many people started the war on the basis that the deeper we went the better, the civil population has shown a tendency—and I am very grateful to them for it—to finish up on the roof, fighting fire bombs. I do not want to discourage that courageous spirit.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the demand for the new billiard-table shelter?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the non-delivery of certain parts of the new indoor shelters although other parts were delivered over a month ago; that local authorities are paying storage charges for the parts delivered; and, in view of the fact that shelters cannot be erected until quantities of such of the parts have been received, will he expedite delivery of the remaining components?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware that delivery of some of the small components of the shelter has been slower than that of the larger parts. Supplies of these small parts are now being received in increasing quantities, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is taking special steps to expedite their delivery.

DETENTIONS.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Home Secretary whether every class of person who is detained under the Defence Regulations has his case submitted to a tribunal?

Mr. H. Morrison: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to persons detained under Defence Regulation 18B. Under this Regulation any person aggrieved by the making of an Order against him has a right to make objections to the Advisory Committee appointed under the Regulation.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that some of the people who are detained have no rights of this kind?

Mr. Morrison: Those detained under Regulation 18B all have those rights, and I assumed that the hon. Member was asking about those detained under that Regulation.

Sir H. Williams: But are there not certain classes of aliens who have no such rights?

Mr. Morrison: I think that the ground is pretty generally covered by existing provisions, save for exceptional cases. There are instances in which the police and the Regional Commissioners can apprehend, but the exercise of those powers is subject to confirmation by the


Secretary of State, in which case the machine in due course picks up and the right of appeal is given.

Sir H. Williams: Is there not a tribunal known as the Lindley tribunal?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH (ANNUAL REPORT).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now considered issuing the last Annual Report for his Department in an abbreviated form; and will he state his decision?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. I propose to issue a summarised report covering the two years ended 31st March, 1941, when the material has been collated.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask some of his officers, when they give statistics of what is happening to the health of the community, to see that Parliament shall receive that information at any rate at the same time as they give it to the Press?

Mr. Brown: I am doing my best in that matter, but, as the hon. Member knows, I am not responsible for the conduct of the Business of the House.

Sir F. Fremantle: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply refer to the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry, or to the Report of the Department, because that is an extremely valuable document for the whole world?

Mr. Brown: I shall do my best to have at least a summary published.

Oral Answers to Questions — PIONEER CORPS (ALIEN DOCTORS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Health whether the Government will use the services of alien doctors in the Pioneer Corps for medical work in hospitals and institutions?

Mr. E. Brown: These doctors are being considered for employment in hospitals and institutions equally with others of allied or enemy nationality, through the machinery set up by the Central Medical War Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has given

instructions that every facility is to be afforded for their attendance at interviews with employing authorities and for their discharge from the Corps when employment is obtained.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many alien doctors are concerned in this?

Mr. Brown: I could not answer that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (PENSIONERS).

Mr. Parker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that his new Income Tax proposals will unfairly affect aged Post Office and other pensioners coming within their ambit, as they may not survive till after the war, to receive back deferred payments; and whether he will exclude this type of person?

Captain Crookshank: My right hon. Friend is afraid that he cannot make any exception to the proposals for increase in the Income Tax charge. I may say that it is proposed to provide in the Finance Bill that the benefit in respect of post-war credit for the increase of Income Tax will accrue to the personal representatives of any taxpayer who may not survive the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC (LOSSES).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware of adverse effects upon opinion in the United States of America resulting from the Government's refusal to publish data showing the loss in transit, by enemy action, of war supplies from America; and whether he will make a statement on this subject in the near future?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): My right hon. Friend is well aware of the considerations to which the hon. Member refers, and he is anxious to release as much information as possible on this and other aspects of the Battle of the Atlantic. It must however be borne in mind that information which is of interest to our friends in America may be of assistance to our enemies in Europe.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware of the comments on this subject of journals in America which are very. favourable to our cause?

Mr. Granville: In view of recent speeches by American leaders, may I ask if this is not the kind of information which would have diplomatic advantage if it were given to America; and, further, will the Minister take into consideration that unless his Department does give this information to America, the American Press and people will be placed at the mercy of Dr. Goebbels' propaganda department?

Mr. Nicolson: That consideration is constantly borne in mind, but it is also most important not to give the enemy precise facts on matters in regard to which at present they can only make the wildest guesses.

Mr. Mander: Did not the Lord Privy Seal, in reply to a Question put down by me last week, say it was the intention of the Government in future to give fuller information, and is he going to carry out that promise?

Mr. Nicolson: Certainly, not full, but fuller information.

REGIONAL COMMITTEES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information whether he will reconsider the advisability of permitting his Regional committees to advise on and criticise the policy of his Department, with a view to increasing their usefulness?

Mr. Nicolson: Regional committees serving the Ministry of Information are not only permitted, but encouraged, to offer advice. No change of policy is required.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that the Regional advisory committees have unanimously recommended the Ministry of Information to abandon the system of a Member's veto on meetings? Is any notice to be taken of that advice?

Mr. Nicolson: It is one thing to offer advice and it is another to pass resolutions of disapproval against the Ministry of Information. The recommendations have been taken into consideration.

Mr. Mander: But, as a result of that consideration, have they been negatived?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ADVISORY LEAFLETS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture the extent of the demands for the various advisory leaflets for farmers and allotment-holders issued by his Department?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): There has been a marked increase this year in the demands for leaflets in the "Growmore" series for farmers and in the "Dig for Victory" series for allotment-holders and gardeners, and steps have been taken to ensure that these leaflets reach those who will derive benefit from them. From 1st January to 30th April this year, the demands for all "Growmore" leaflets totalled over 1,250,000, compared with about 400,000 for the same period in 1940. Nearly 250,000 leaflets on "The Early Bite," "Nitrogen—The Way to High Yields," and "Kale for Winter Feed" have been issued to date this year, compared with about 30,000 during the whole of last year. During March last, the Postmaster-General, at my request, arranged for a house-to-house distribution in rural areas of the principal "Dig for Victory" leaflet—"Vegetable Production in Private Gardens." Including demands from the urban areas, 5,000,000 copies of this leaflet have been distributed in the past two months, together with over 600,000 copies of a coloured cropping chart showing how to plan the production of vegetables for winter as well as summer. Over 1,000,000 copies of the various advisory leaflets in the "Dig for Victory" series have also been issued to date.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the advice given in these leaflets is generally followed by farmers and allotment-holders?

Mr. Hudson: As a result of the propaganda campaign on the wireless and in the Press, more attention is being paid to, and more use is being made of, the advice made available for farmers and allotment-holders.

HYDROPONICS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture the progress being made in this country with regard to hydroponics, and other methods of soil-less culture?

Mr. Hudson: The processes of water and sand culture under glass are being tested at several experimental centres aided by the Ministry, as well as by private persons and commercial firms. The results so far obtained are inconclusive.

Mr. Smith: Am I right in assuming that the committee of scientific men examined these new methods; and if so, will a summary of their conclusions be at the disposal of the House?

Mr. Hudson: A summary of the experimental work up to 1938 was published in the ''Ministry of Agriculture Journal'' in November, 1938. Since then, certain articles have been published, notably one by Reading University and others in two numbers of the "Fruit Grower," in May, 1940. I will see that as the tests are concluded some information is published.

Mr. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend remember that many months ago he promised to give a summary of the most up-to-date conclusions? So far, I have not been able to trace them.

Mr. Hudson: I am afraid the experiments have not yet reached the stage at which it would be possible to draw conclusions.

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Agriculture what opportunity is given to farmers to appeal against the ploughing-up orders of the war agricultural executive committees?

Mr. Hudson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) on this subject on 27th February.

Mr. Granville: In the case of small working farmers who have been dispossessed, for various reasons—perhaps the lack of capital—is there any opportunity for them, in view of the shortage of labour, to continue working as cultivators, and to assist in food production?

Mr. Hudson: There is nothing to stop them working as agricultural labourers.

PIG CLUBS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture the qualifications for membership of a pig club; and the conditions

which must be fulfilled before members can receive part of the pig meat so produced?

Mr. Hudson: I am sending the hon. Member leaflets giving full information.

Mr. Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some villages of Essex people are evading these conditions, and are getting pig meat without having to keep pigs at all?

NATIONAL DIPLOMA COURSES.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether national diploma courses are being continued in agricultural colleges; whether Ministry of Agriculture scholarships for the children of farm workers and others, to enable them to take such courses, still continue; and, if not, why?

Mr. Hudson: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second and third parts, although certain awards made before the outbreak of war are being continued, in existing circumstances the need for farm work is so great that the operation of the scholarship scheme has been suspended. I need not say that I shall keep the position under constant review, and restore the scheme as soon as the position justifies.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision has interfered with the scholastic courses of some young people who are actually in the middle of such courses? Is it not possible to allow them to continue to the end?

Mr. Hudson: One of the main difficulties was the lack of teachers. As the House will be aware, last summer, in order to speed up the food production campaign, I was compelled to divert technical teachers to assist district committees in the actual food production campaign. Until we are a good deal "forrader," I am not prepared to allow them to go back to their normal duties.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it not a fact that the national necessity was greater than the personal one?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.

DISPOSSESSED FARMERS, SUFFOLK.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any information in connection with the dismissal


of 200 Suffolk farmers for bad cultivation; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Mr. Hudson: I assume that the hon. Member refers to statements appearing recently in the Press that 200 farmers in Suffolk had been turned out of their farms by the county war agricultural executive committees. This statement is not correct. In fact, I understand that the total number of cases in East and West Suffolk where owner-occupiers or tenants of farms have been dispossessed of their farms owing to failure to cultivate their land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry is not much more than half the figure stated. In all these cases the action of the committees was taken with my consent, and, therefore, the last part of the Question does not arise.

Mr. Thorne: Even if only a certain number of the farmers had been dispossessed, what has become of the land which was being cultivated?

Mr. Hudson: It was because the land was not being properly cultivated that the committee took possession of it. They are taking steps to see that it is now cultivated and brought back into production.

Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these area committees in Suffolk are composed of men of the highest character and agricultural capacity, who are carrying out their difficult and disagreeable task only from a sense of public duty?

Mr. Hudson: Yes; and I have already borne witness to the Government's appreciation of their efforts. In view of the food situation, we must back them up in everything that they do to encourage proper cultivation of the land.

Mr. Maxton: Why has this county such a very large proportion of inefficient farmers as compared with any other county in England and with any in Scotland?

Mr. Hudson: We must remember the difficulties of farming in East Anglia during the last 20 years. We are now trying to bring back the land into cultivation.

Mr. Lipson: Is there any difficulty about getting people to take over these farms?

Mr. Hudson: Not so far as I know.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

HOME-GROWN TOMATOES (PRICE).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that home grown tomatoes are being sold at 6s. 6d. per pound; and whether he will make an order forthwith fixing a maximum price, in view of the fact that this has already been done in the case of imported tomatoes?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): English tomatoes are not yet in season, and prices are necessarily high. As the crop comes on to the market in increasing quantities in the next six weeks, prices are expected to fall substantially. The question whether in these circumstances a Price Control Order will be necessary is at present under consideration.

PRICE REGULATION.

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the grave abuses infesting the trade in unrationed foods, where in some instances prices have been doubled and even quadrupled, he will consider the advisability of granting in creased powers to the prices regulation regional committees, in order to stop this practice?

Major Lloyd George: The prices of a wide range of foodstuffs are regulated by maximum price orders or some other form of control, and enforcement of price orders is actively undertaken by the Ministry's divisional and local organisations. Control will be extended to other commodities where such extension is necessary and practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAPER CONTROL (PAMPHLETS).

Mrs. Rathbone: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the number of valueless pamphlets, both from private individuals and organisations, being received by Members of Parliament day after day; and whether there can be some further control to prevent this waste of paper?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): There are very severe restrictions on the quantity of paper made


available for general printing and on the distribution of advertising circulars. However much I sympathise personally with my hon. Friend, I should be loth to become a censor of pamphlets to be distributed either to hon. Members or to the general public.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the amount of space taken up for advertising purposes in papers generally is justified?

Mr. Macmillan: This Question refers to circulars. Paper used for miscellaneous printing is limited to 20 per cent., and for circulars to 15 per cent., of the pre-war amount.

Mr. Charles Williams: Could not the Government themselves reduce the number of circulars?

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONERS.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Attorney-General which Department has power to deal with coroners for county districts in cases where complaint is made of unsatisfactory performance of their duties not amounting to misbehaviour or incompetence as, from a recent case when complaint was made of a coroner, it appears that the functions of the Lord Chancellor are somewhat ill-defined, and that the Home Secretary has no authority over coroners in such a matter as this; and whether he will take steps to clarify this matter so as to ensure that any coroner who may neglect his duty shall be dealt with adequately and without undue delay?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I will state first the function of the Lord Chancellor in this matter, which is to receive any complaint which may be made with respect to the conduct of a coroner, whether under Section 8 of the Coroners Act, 1887, or under the Common Law. If he forms the opinion that the complaint, if substantiated, would be such as to require him to remove the coroner from his office for inability or misbehaviour in the discharge of his duty, he investigates the complaint giving a full opportunity to the coroner to deal with any charges made and decides judicially on the matter. Section 8 (2) of the Coroners Act, 1887, inter alia makes

wilful neglect by a coroner a misdemeanour. Apart from this provision there is no power to take disciplinary action against a coroner where the complaint does not amount in the Lord Chancellor's opinion to inability or misbehaviour in the discharge of his duty. The existing provisions would seem adequate for dealing with any serious case.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECONSTRUCTION (BUILDING MATERIALS).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the. Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he can give the House any assurance that the necessary building materials, cement, bricks, etc., will be available for the heavy construction programme before the country and that there is no likelihood of short ages being experienced, as was the case last year?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to give the House full assurance that, subject to unforeseen developments, all the necessary building materials will be available for essential works in the Government programme. I would, however, emphasise that this is conditioned by the fact that we cannot afford to allow any work to proceed which is not urgently necessary.

Sir H. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether in fact there was any shortage of cement at all last year, except a shortage produced by ill-managed premises?

Oral Answers to Questions — DAMAGED HOUSES (REPAIRS).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings to what extent con tractors and labour have been withdrawn from urgent Government works to carry out repairs to damaged houses; and whether he will consider arranging for reserves of labour to be earmarked and kept available for such work?

Mr. Hicks: Contractors and labour have been withdrawn in some cases from urgent Government works to meet immediate requirements after very heavy air attacks. But such withdrawal has


been purely temporary. Ordinarily, it is considered that the better co-ordination of local building contractors and labour should provide the necessary means of meeting the demand for house repair; and this is now in hand. It would not, in the Ministry's opinion, be justifiable to hold reserves of labour which would not be fully occupied when not actually required for air-raid damage repair work.

Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in present circumstances there is a large number of houses which can be made habitable with no great amount of repair, but which are not being made habitable because of the shortage of labour in a particular area?

Mr. Hicks: I can assure my hon. Friend that this is a matter that will necessarily receive very urgent consideration. We have been commissioned by the Prime Minister to give such work priority, and in each and every case where practicable men will be drafted in order to give temporary services to put houses into habitable condition.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (BRICKED-UP WINDOWS).

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he is providing sunlight, or other treatment, for civil servants and other Government staffs working in rooms bricked-up on account of anti-blast or other purposes; and whether he has consulted the medical profession on this question?

Mr. Hicks: The answer to both parts of the hon. and gallant Member's Question is in the negative. Where windows are bricked up the work is done to provide the most effective protection against blast and splinters, and ventilation is provided. There is obviously a loss of amenity, but Departments have not drawn my attention to any adverse effect on the health of the staffs concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my hon. Friend consider that it is too late to send complaints from the Departments; is he aware that some of the hospitals in similar circumstances have installed sunlight treatment; and will he consider installing sunlight baths?

Mr. Hicks: I do not think that the Department will be behind in making any recommendation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the general progress made in the drawing up of schemes for the concentration of industry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): The hon. Member will no doubt have seen in the Press that the latest dates for the submission of voluntary arrangements for concentration have been fixed for certain industries. The dates range from 15th to 31st May. As soon as possible after the latter date my right hon. Friend hopes to review the situation and make a further statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (AIR-RAIDS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Air, how many times Malta has been raided since September; and the number of men, women and children that have been killed and injured?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The answer to the first part of the Question is 82. As regards the second part, it would not be in the public interest to disclose the number of Service casualties. Particulars of the civilian casualties are not available in this country.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House of the number of machines that were brought down in this country last night?

Captain Balfour: The raids on Malta referred to in this Question have not been the only activity in the air, because the House will be interested to know that last night we destroyed 23 of the enemy machines coming over to this country, and in addition to that total of 23, there is a considerable number, of which I cannot give the exact figure, damaged and possibly brought down, and I might tell the House that the "pick-up" may come into double figures.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that my Question has resulted in some jolly good information?

Mr. Maxton: What has that to do with Malta?

Mr. Mander: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say approximately how many machines came over?

Captain Balfour: indicated dissent.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the forthcoming Business?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The Business will be as follows:
On the first Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Allied Powers (Maritime Courts) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
On the second Sitting Day—Supply (6th Allotted Day): Committee. A Debate on Economic Warfare will take place in Secret Session.
On the third Sitting Day—Committee and remaining stages of the Allied Powers (Maritime Courts) Bill.
During those days, as opportunity offers, further progress will be made with the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Bill [Lords] and the Public and Other Schools (War Conditions) Bill [Lords].

Sir Percy Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be an early opportunity to debate the Ministry of Supply?

Mr. Attlee: That opportunity will be given, but I am unable to state the exact day.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Lord Privy Seal in a position to state when the Finance Bill will be available in the Vote Office?

Mr. Attlee: Next week.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Will an opportunity be given to the House in the near future to discuss the very vital question of propaganda?

Mr. Attlee: That will be considered, if it is the desire of the House to have a Debate.

Mr. Lindsay: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he can find time, if there is a sufficient feeling in the House, for a general discussion on the allied questions of Civil Defence and evacuation?

Mr. Attlee: That question will also be considered.

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — LIABILITIES (WAR-TIME ADJUSTMENT) [Money].

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the arrangement or the adjustment and settlement of the affairs of persons financially affected by war circumstances; to amend the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1939 and 1940, and the Possession of Mortgaged Land (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray the salaries or remuneration, and the expenses, of liabilities adjustment officers and their subordinate officers and servants.

Resolution agreed to.

LIABILITIES (WAR-TIME ADJUSTMENT) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Services of liabilities adjustment officers in effecting schemes of arrangement.)

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the first two Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) and that in the name of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), may be taken together.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out from "scheme," to "and," in line 5, and to insert:
(a) to which the debtor and a majority in number and value of such of the said creditors whose debts have been proved assent; or
(b) where there is one creditor whose debt has been proved or where there is one creditor whose debt constitutes a majority in value of the debts which have been proved, as to which the liabilities adjustment officer is satisfied;
Provided always in each case that the scheme appears to him to be equitable and reasonable."
The Amendment is designed,' in the first place, to retain for this very desirable officer—the liabilities adjustment officer— all the powers given to him under the Clause as it stands, but by this Amend-

ment it is sought to make further use of his services and to give them an extended scope, so that his duties will cover not only the quasi-bankruptcy duty of presiding in cases where there are many creditors, but will give him an opportunity of taking part in the settlement of affairs where there is only one creditor or where one creditor is the predominant creditor. That is the circumstance which will prevail in a very large number of cases for whose aid this Bill has been brought forward. The wording of the Amendment may, perhaps, leave a little to be desired in its exact terms. Perhaps the expression "is satisfied" gives him too wide a scope, but if my right hon. and learned Friend will accept the spirit of the Amendment and give the liabilities adjustment officer a wider scope of duties than he now has, we shall be quite satisfied. If not, to the extent of enabling him to approve a scheme in the circumstances outlined by himself, at least I would beg my right hon. and learned Friend to give him the right, of his own volition, when he has considered schemes affecting one creditor, to approve a scheme subject to submitting it to the county courts before it becomes effective. This Amendment stands in the names of two hon. Members, including myself, who are both members of the legal profession, although of different branches, and is designed to enable matters to be settled out of court rather than in court. I hope the fact that members of the legal profession are responsible for this Amendment will induce the Attorney-General to give it favourable consideration.

Mr. Douglas (Battersea, North): I have an amendment in page 2, line 3, to leave out from "reasonable," to "and," in line 5, which I think may be discussed at the same time as this and which is intended to effect the same purpose. As the Clause stands at the present moment, it limits the operations of the liabilities adjustment officer in a way that does not seem to be necessary. The debtors are in any case protected by the provision under Sub-section (4) of this Clause by which they can have recourse to the courts if they are not satisfied with the scheme which is made by the liabilities adjustment officer. Therefore, as the debtors have that protection surely it will be far better not to reconsider the activities of the liabilities adjustment officer in the way which the


Clause proposes at the present time. There are, as the mover of the Amendment said just now, many cases in which there will be one creditor whose debt exceeds in value all the rest put together. There are cases of people who owe money to building societies or other bodies on 'the mortgages of their houses, and I would like to point out that there is nothing in this Bill, so far as I can see, -which provides that in assessing the value of the debt for the purposes of this Clause any deduction shall be made of the security which is held by the creditor. It may be that the power which is given later to the Lord Chancellor to make rules is intended to enable him to make a rule dealing with this particular point, but I am doubtful about that. It is certainly far from clear, and unless it can be covered in that way a creditor of that kind will be able to use the whole value of his debt as a lever and will be able to prevent a scheme being made in the great majority of cases which might come before the liabilities adjustment officer.
I think it is very unfortunate that we are introducing a new procedure which departs from the old traditions of bankruptcy law—that we should fetter it by a condition which is appropriate to that but which is not appropriate to this new method. The result of the Clause remaining as it is at the present moment will simply be that the unfortunate debtor will have to make use of the more formal and legal procedure which is contemplated in the later Clauses of the Bill and which will involve him in additional expense in court fees and in obtaining legal assistance. Everybody knows that when a matter has to be dealt with before the courts people are, for their self-protection, forced to obtain legal assistance. If the matter comes before the liabilities adjustment officer, I presume that the proceedings will be quite simple and formal, so that there will not be the same deterrent to the debtor acting on his own behalf and so saving expense, trouble and inconvenience. On these grounds I hope the Attorney-General will be willing to accept a modification of this Clause.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I appreciate very much the general desire that as many of these cases as possible should be disposed of before

the liabilities adjustment officer. On the other hand, one has to remember that the idea of that officer is that he should be a conciliation officer. What he is wanted to do, and what he is prepared to do, is to try and get people to agree, and it is because that is his function and because he has only limited compulsory powers, if I may put it that way, that he is able to adopt what the hon. Gentleman has just referred to—simple and informal procedure. When we came to consider this matter on that basis, we had to consider a case where all creditors did not agree and where there were, perhaps, one or two outstandingly unreasonable or non-agreeing parties. Under bankruptcy law in that class of case the whole thing would have had to have gone before a court. We thought that that proceeding in this class of case would be undesirable, despite the fact that this officer will not be tied by legal forms and procedure and will be able to communicate informally with the people concerned. So we thought it right to insert a provision, if the majority agreed, that this scheme should be operative unless the minority appealed to the court, and I think that is reasonable and fair. I do not think either of the hon. Gentlemen' who have just spoken would object to that. They want compulsory powers to go further.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) has an Amendment which deals with the case of the single debtor or where there is one single predominant debtor, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Batter-sea (Mr. Douglas) also referred to that case. I do not think it would be right to go further than we have gone in the Bill as it stands, whether there is one creditor or a number of creditors. I think if we were to adopt the methods here proposed, a strong case could be made that, if the liabilities adjustment officer is to have these compulsory powers, then he must be bound by certain principles of procedure and this would change his character, which I think would be unfortunate. In, the case of the single creditor if mortgagee or the landlord, as the case may be, and the debtor go before the liabilities adjustment officer and the debtor makes an offer and says "Here are my affairs; here is my boarding-house "—if he is a boarding-house keeper—"with nobody in it, or only a few people in it, instead of


being full, but I think I can get through," and if, in such a case, the landlord or the mortgagee is not satisfied with an offer which the liabilities adjustment officer considers reasonable, then, I agree, the matter has to go to court. But I will see that it is made quite clear that in those cases the expense of going to court can be placed on the landlord or mortgagee who has forced the tenant to go to court, because he would not accept the offer which the liabilities adjustment officer considered reasonable. I believe that that is a better way of dealing with the problem and that to extend the powers of the officer too far would be, as I say, to alter his character.

Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not met my hon. Friend's point to a very large extent, but there is considerable substance in the concession which he has indicated regarding costs. I attach a great deal of importance to it and would be very glad if he could inform us in what way he proposes to give effect to that safeguard.

The Attorney-General: Costs are usually left in the discretion of the court but if it should be found necessary to have a rule that the court shall have regard to any offer made by the tenant and approved by the liabilities adjustment officer, I will see that the necessary alteration is made.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: In view of the Attorney-General's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir Adam Maitland: I wish to raise a question on this Clause, and if this is not the appropriate time for doing so, perhaps an answer can be given to it at a later stage. There is some uncertainty in the definitions in this Clause which may affect different classes of people, and one instance on which I think the Committee would desire to have some further information, is that, in which, under this scheme, the payment of rent is postponed. Is there any provision in the Bill—I have myself so far been unable to find one—that the person who owns the property in such a case shall be relieved of the payment of Income Tax upon it? In these days of high taxation, it seems

very unfair if Parliament, by a legislative Act, has postponed the payment of a sum that is due, such as rent, to deprive the property-owner of his rent and yet under another enactment place him under the obligation of paying taxation on that sum at the present high rates. As I say, if I am premature in putting this point I am willing to postpone it to a later stage.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I make a suggestion? A great many questions will doubtless arise as to the effects of this Measure in relation to the Board of Inland Revenue. The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to one only. Could the Attorney-General give the Committee an assurance that he is in touch with the Board of Inland Revenue, with a view to making the necessary provision against injustices to tax-payers arising under the Bill, as undoubtedly will happen unless this matter is dealt with on a broad basis?

The Attorney-General: The point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) does not arise on this Clause. There is no Amendment on the Paper dealing with it and it was not as far as I know raised during the Second Reading Debate. I cannot do more, at the moment, than say that I will certainly look into it. I have been in touch with the Inland Revenue and while I cannot give any undertaking to deal with that particular matter, I certainly appreciate its importance. I do not think we can have a discussion upon it now, but as I say, I will look into it.

Sir Herbert Williams: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman go as far as to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the situation that may arise in these cases, so that he may be able to consider in the meantime introducing an appropriate Amendment in the Finance Bill, to deal with such matters?

The Attorney-General: Certainly.

Major C. S. Taylor: I wish to draw attention to one small point in connection with this Clause. Subsection (9) provides for registration of schemes of arrangement on the same register as that provided for under the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1914. I understand that this Bill is designed to avoid any stigma of bankruptcy attach-


ing to an individual in these cases, and therefore I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the advisability of having a separate register made under the provisions of this Bill. Otherwise, if the registration is to be under the normal bankruptcy procedure it will tend to cast the stigma of bankruptcy on the individual concerned.

The Attorney-General: I think the Bill itself meets, in substance, the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, by removing the stigma to which he refers. As regards the register, it might impose an undue burden on those who have to carry out searches if they were called upon to search two lists instead of one, and I cannot think that the mere fact of registration under the procedure now proposed would involve any unfairness to the debtor who has to go to the liabilities adjustment officer. I am, however, sympathetic to the idea, and I will look into it and if I find that it can be done without any inconvenience, I have no objection to these cases coming under a different heading. It may, however, be an unnecessary complexity to have two lists instead of one.

Mr. Woodburn (Clackmannan and Stirling, Eastern): The Attorney-General has mentioned the case of the boarding-house keeper who, though unable to pay his rent at the moment, thinks he may be able to carry on his business. I foresee the possibility of tenants of another type finding themselves in serious financial difficulties to an extent which may affect a considerable number of the population. I refer to those tenants who have been "blitzed" out of ordinary houses and have lost their furniture and equipment and who, owing to force of circumstances, and because no other houses are available, may be compelled to seek refuge in houses which have been partially repaired. Under the law as it stands in Scotland, such a tenant under the contract of tenancy is required to pay the full rent if the house is wind and water tight. If such a tenant is in serious financial difficulties, I take it that he also would be entitled to apply to the liabilities adjustment officer to have an arrangement made between himself and the landlord for a suitable modification of the rent, to meet his difficulties and perhaps to compensate for the lack of amenities. That type of

case will be very prevalent. The Bill covers big property owners and so on, and I would like to know whether the Attorney-General has foreseen the possibility of the liabilities adjustment officer functioning in the cases to which I have referred.

The Attorney-General: I do not think that on this Clause we can go into special questions arising between landlord and tenant in connection with repaired houses, a matter which is really covered by the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act. However, under this Clause, anyone in serious financial difficulties can go to the liabilities adjustment officer and seek assistance to make arrangements with a landlord, or with anybody else, if he cannot meet his obligations

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Appointment, services, salaries and staff of liabilities adjustment officers.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to add new Sub-section:
 "(3) There shall be paid to liabilities adjustment officers and to any such subordinate officers and servants such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine and the salaries or remuneration and the expenses of any such officers and servants shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
This is a Privilege Amendment, which simply provides for payments to the liabilities adjustment officers.

Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will remember that at a former stage of the Bill I raised the question of the costs of liabilities adjustment officers. I think that matter is relevant to the proposed Sub-section (3) of this Clause, and I should like to ask the Attorney-General, who was good enough to promise me that he would look into this matter, whether he is now able to announce any concession to debtors by means of the payment of some of their costs through the channel of the expenses of the liabilities adjustment officers. There are cases in which some small point of law arises as between a very powerful creditor and a very impoverished debtor, and it frequently happens that the debtor is drawn through the courts until he abandons the case altogether, and then has awarded against him enormous sums in costs out of all


proportion to his original debt. I think that in such cases, particularly if, for example, the Attorney-General certified that some principle of law arose which ought to be tested, the expenses of testing the point of law ought to be borne on the expenses of the liabilities adjustment officer. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can make a concession of that sort, or at any rate state that he will look into the matter, it will make an improvement in the Sub-section.

The Attorney-General: I am not sure that this matter really arises on the present Amendment, which provides for the payment of the liabilities adjustment officers and their expenses. I promised to look into the suggestion which the hon. Member made on a former occasion, but I am afraid I cannot give him an answer to-day, although I do not blame him for reminding me of my promise. The question put was whether certain points of law might in form be decided by proceeding against the liabilities adjustment officer. I do not think that would be possible, and I foresee difficulties about it. However, I will look into the matter which the hon. Member has raised and see whether something further can be done with regard to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. Williams: I wish to raise a matter that was raised in another place, namely, the sort of persons who will be appointed as liabilities adjustment officers. As a layman, I was very much encouraged when I heard the speech of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), who is, I believe, connected with the legal profession, and who stated what seemed to me to be the broad and high-minded view that in this case we should do all we can to prevent legalism spoiling the working of the scheme, and that the scheme should not be regarded as a device for earning fees. That is the approach we ought to make. If that be the case, what sort of persons are to be appointed? A friend has written me in these terms:
There is a feeling abroad that when it comes to these appointments, they will be for some existing court officials, and the whole thing will be linked up with the existing debt

procedure. Quite a number of people would much prefer that some ordinary citizens of the chartered accountant type, or anybody qualified, should be brought in.
I am ignorant in these matters. I have never had any part in bankruptcy proceedings, either as a debtor or as a creditor, and I hope I never shall. I have been rather lucky. It seems to me that these officers should be essentially conciliators, and I think it would help us if the Attorney-General could give some indication of what is in the mind of the Lord Chancellor in regard to these appointments. Naturally, no-one can tie himself down as to what he will and will not do. It might happen that a legal gentleman would be just the right person for the job in some cases, whereas in other cases it might be somebody else. What we want to keep out of the operation of the Bill, when it becomas an Act, is the outlook of the bankruptcy courts. The scheme is a raft, and not a depth charge. The Bankruptcy Act is a depth charge. We want to make sure that the scheme is run on the right lines and animated by the right spirit.

Mr. Woodburn: With reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), I wish to make a suggestion. Recently, the Treasury introduced into the Finance Act a Section which gave them power to do away with the assessors under the Income Tax Acts. In future these assesors in various towns will probably find that their work is disappearing. It seems to me that they would be suitable persons to do the type of work that will fall upon the liabilities adjustment officers. They have been, as it were, the go-betweens between the Income Tax payers and the Income Tax authorities. I think they would be acceptable to both sides. They are not in any way connected with debt collecting, which I think it would be a great tragedy to associate in any way with this scheme.

The Attorney-General: Although I agree with the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), I would remind him that some people would regard anybody connected with Income Tax as suffering from a certain taint. My Noble Friend is very anxious to get the right type of men for this work. I do not think one can be too dogmatic on the subject. There are some conciliatory lawyers, there are some registrars of


county courts who might be available and who might be very good for this work, and solicitors, in spite of the taint of the law, might be found admirably suitable for it. I also agree that chartered accountants might be suitable. I think the right type of man might be found in all these categories. A suggestion was made in another place about Official Receivers, and it might be found that they would be perfectly suitable men, although there is not the slightest intention of appointing Official Receivers en bloc. The whole idea of the Bill is against what one might call the bankruptcy procedure. I think that the men available from those different categories will give complete satisfaction, but one cannot lay down definite rules in the matter. However, I can give this assurance, namely, that my Noble Friend entirely agrees with what has been said as to the desirability of getting men who will deal with this question on broad human lines, and will not approach it from the point of view of debt collecting or with any professional or personal bias. The principle of conciliation is the principle of this part of the Bill.

Sir H. Williams: Are these gentlemen to be paid salaries or fees? I see the word "salaries" is used. Will the work be done on the basis of a time-rate or a piece-rate, if I may use those expressions?

The Attorney-General: We shall have to see as we go along, because in some areas it may be a whole-time job, in which case salaries will be the more appropriate. If it is a question of occasional work, I think a fee would be more appropriate.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Application for adjustment of debtor's affairs.)

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, to leave out "and," and to insert "or."
This Clause gives jurisdiction to the courts to deal with applications. It not only gives jurisdiction to courts in a very important class of case, but also gives jurisdiction to the liability adjustment officers in those cases where all the creditors do not agree—that is under Clause I, Sub-section 2 (b). The object of the

Amendment is in one sense to widen, and in another sense to try and simplify, the conditions under which applications may be made to the courts, and the treatment of cases which are dealt with by the liabilities adjustment officers, in the cases where all the creditors do not agree. As the Clause stands at the present moment, a double condition has to be satisfied. Firstly, the debtor has to satisfy the condition that he is unable to pay his debts, which I understand to mean that he is unable to pay his debts immediately, and not necessarily unable to pay them if the whole of his assets can be liquidated, and, secondly, he has to satisfy the condition that he is unable to meet any future liability in respect of which obligation has already been incurred. But it is quite conceivable that the debtor may be able to meet his future obligations because some asset may become available to him in the future which is not available to him at the present time. If that were his state of affairs, it would be impossible for him to make any application to the courts and to have the services of the liabilities adjustment officer under Clause I if any one of his creditors objected. Moreover, it is very difficult to decide whether a man will or will not be able to meet future liabilities, in view of the difficult conditions under which we are living at the present time. It might depend, for instance, on how long the war lasted. If the war ended this year, his position with regard to liabilities which might accrue next year might be quite easy. Therefore, I submit that under the Clause, as it stands at present, it may be possible that many deserving cases may be deprived of the procedure which this Bill seeks to introduce.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) in the Amendment which he has moved. I must confess that I was unable to understand what other kind of liabilities could fall due except future liabilities. The word "future" seems to be unnecessary. With regard to the other point that my hon. Friend has made, of course, if a man is unable to pay his debts, and that is left as a general term, it would certainly cover the whole question of bankruptcy. Therefore, with my hon. Friend, I think that there should be some provision made here


to cover a man who may be unable to meet his liabilities as they fall due, but who may be able to meet them after they fall due. In such cases the liabilities adjustment officer might be able to make some arrangement with the creditors whereby the debtor could pay his debts six or nine months hence. Some accommodation should be given, which, after all, is the whole purpose of this Bill, instead of making a man bankrupt when he can show he is willing to meet his debts.

The Attorney-General: The question is whether the word "or" or the word "and" is right in a case of this kind. It is very nearly as difficult to decide, as it is for me to decide whether one puts the clock on or back when Summer-time starts. We think we have got the right word and that the Amendment is wrong. The problem can be stated quite shortly. Let us assume the present debts of a man are £3. If he has less than £3, he is unable to meet his present obligations. Happily, that will be the majority of the cases, and we hope that such cases, will benefit by the Bill. But let us suppose that a man's present debts are £3, that he has £5 in his pocket, and that he will owe £3 rent in a fortnight's time. We drafted this Clause with a view to bringing that man in, namely, the man who can say that he has not got enough to pay his immediate liabilities. A man might say that if he waited until the end of the month, he would have a future obligation to pay £3, and that in the meantime he would have nothing coming in. He might say that if he paid his butcher and baker, he would be left with only £2. That is the case we wanted to bring in under the Bill—it is a case of a man who is not insolvent at the moment.

Major Milner: That is not what the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) stated.

The Attorney-General: It is a question of whether the word "and" or the word "or" covers it. We think the word "and" does it. It means that anyone can apply who is unable to pay his debts and meet them as they fall due—that is, future liabilities if any. Therefore, a man could be covered if he could show that he was unable to meet his present debts. If he cannot meet his present debts, he will not be able to meet his future debts.

Mr. Douglas: That does not follow.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member thinks there is a possibility of a man being unable to meet his present debts, but who will be able to meet his future debts. I do not think that is a likely case, but it is a possibility. However, I am certain that the word "or" will not meet it, because it would exclude the man with £5 who has to pay £3 to-day and £3 liability in the future. That man could not show that he was unable to meet his present debts, because they are only £3 and he has £5. I will consider an amplified and clearer form of words. It is plain that we desire the same result, and I will put it down for the Report stage.

Mr. Woodburn: Would it not help if both words were put in—"and" and "or"?

The Attorney-General: You cannot do that in an Act of Parliament.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "be," to insert "in serious financial difficulties or."
Paragraph (b), as I read it, extends the benefit under these proceedings to those who have certain assets but who, if they were deprived of those assets for the immediate benefit of their creditors, would find themselves in, so to speak, a future difficulty. They would be unable to carry on business and would be deprived of the means of livelihood. In other words, in respect of businesses the Bill recognises the desirability in certain circumstances of retaining available assets in the possession of the debtor. My Amendment is designed to extend the benefit of that provision in proper cases to individuals not necessarily engaged in business. I have in mind an individual who has an insurance which has an immediate cash value, or one who would have a little money put by for contingencies, not much, but some asset which could be realised. I have sought to do this by using the phraseology of Clause I. As the Attorney-General has said, the sphere of operations of the Bill before the courts is more limited than that of the liabilities adjustment officer, because his duties extend to all persons who are in serious financial difficulties. But the Bill does not give to everyone in serious financial difficulties the power to come to the court seeking an


adjustment order. It limits it to the category that we discussed in the previous paragraph and those in the paragraph that we are now considering. It may be that the term is too wide to be included in paragraph (b) and that it needs to be further hedged, but I would press the right hon. and learned Gentleman to extend the provision which he is now going to make with regard to businesses to private individuals, so that they need not necessarily be deprived of all their available cash assets, or immediately realisable assets, before they can have the advantage of adjustment proceedings.

The Attorney-General: I thought, when I saw this Amendment on the Paper in the place where it was, that it was directed to the category of persons dealt with in paragraph (b) but, having heard the hon. Gentleman, I think he is really wanting to extend the class of case which in the Bill is dealt with under paragraph (a), because his words would cover all the people whom we have already defined, and to some extent limited, under that paragraph (a). They would all be in serious financial difficulties. I quite agree that you must decide in a Bill of this kind where to draw the line, and, wherever you draw it, some people will say, "Could you not go a little further?" We felt that the proper place to draw the line in this general class of case is where it is drawn in paragraph (a). We used the most general words when setting up the liabilities adjustment officer in Clause 1, because really we wanted to leave him with the door open. We did not want him to say, "I have no jurisdiction to look into your case unless you satisfy certain specific conditions." But, when you are coming to the court procedure, which one has to look at from the point of view of creditors as well as debtors—and not all creditors are rich people—you have to be specific.
The first suggestion that occurs to one would be to take the normal insolvency case and ask, "Can you meet your liabilities? If you can, you had better go ahead. Something might turn up." But we thought that would be rather too rigid with this exceptional and unanticipated type of circumstances. It was right, we felt, to give a man the benefit of these proceedings if, although he had

assets to meet his present liabilities, he could see what was coming in the future and would not be able also to discharge those obligations. That is where we thought it right to draw the line in ordinary cases. I think one has to distinguish and apply special treatment to businesses, particularly small businesses, which in some ways are the hardest hit of all and which it is most desirable in everyone's interest to preserve, and therefore paragraph (b) went rather further than (a) and said, "You may get a man who can pay his debts—cannot say he cannot meet his future liabilities—but he may say, If I exhaust my resources, I shall soon be unable to carry on my business.' "It would be because he was trying to keep his business that there would be a drain on his reserves, which would not arise in non-business cases. He would have his business premises to keep and might have other outgoings. Therefore, we thought that in the case of a business it would be right to look a little further into the future.
The point which I thought my hon. Friend was going to make—and although he has not made it, I will make it—is that the words "he would be unable to carry on his business" are a little too flat a test and that we ought to make the words a little vaguer by saying that he would be unlikely to be able to carry on his business. I think that a little further elasticity in this paragraph in that direction might be advisable, but we cannot accept the words "in serious financial difficulties" in the general form in which my hon. Friend has proposed. We think that in paragraph (a) in the general sense in which it is drawn we have gone as far as we can reasonably go.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to insert something in paragraph (b) that would extend this benefit to others than those who are possessed of businesses? I agree that there must be a definite line of demarcation, but I do not think it is right that only in the case of businesses anybody is to be allowed to retain money which could be available to pay debts with. If he is prepared to extend the paragraph beyond pure businesses I should be glad to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Major Milner: If I applied under paragraph (a), a scheme might be approved


by the liabilities adjustment officer whereby I paid 10s. in the £ and I should be left with assets. My hon. Friend seems to be under the impression that I should necessarily have to hand over to my creditors everything I have got. I take it that that will not necessarily be so, whether I am in business or not, for I would have to have a little left to live on. I should like to ask whether it is intended that in all cases where application is made under paragraph (a) the debtor would have to hand over to his creditors all that he has.

The Attorney-General: That comes under Clause 4, under which the court has power, in settling the terms of a liability adjustments order, to secure the maintenance of the debtor and his family and for excepting from the property to be realised his home and business premises. On the point that my hon. Friend raised, I would draw his attention to the last words of paragraph (b), "or would otherwise lose his means of livelihood." It is not confined to businesses and the rentier, the man who has not a business or means of livelihood, comes within paragraph (a). In that case it would be difficult to go beyond what we are doing in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, after "agreement," to insert:
being land or goods in the debtor's possession at the date of the order.
This and the four following Amendments are little more than drafting Amendments. It was pointed out that the Bill was a little obscure on the question whether a protection order operated, as, of course, it must, on the property as at the date of the Order. These Amendments prevent any argument arising on that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, line 14, after "upon," insert "any such."

In line 15, leave out from "of," to end of line, and insert "any such goods."

In line 28, at the beginning, insert "The Court may in."

In line 28, leave out "may."—[The Attorney-General.]

Major Milner: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, at the end, to insert:
 and a copy of any such report shall be available for inspection by the debtor or any creditor.
It is obviously desirable that all proceedings under this Bill should be open and above board, and it seems to be right and proper that a copy of any report made by the liabilities adjustment officer to the court should be available for inspection by the debtor or any creditor. It is a practice in bankruptcy for the official receiver to make a report upon the conduct of the debtor. It is a public report and is read in open court. One wants to avoid the liabilities adjustment officer putting into a report anything which the debtor or any creditor should not have the opportunity of controverting, correcting, or acquiescing in, as the case may be. It may be more appropriate to deal with this point in the rules, and if the provision is made there, I shall be content.

Sir A. Maitland: Will the Attorney-General consider extending the Amendment so as to make the report available not only to the debtor, but to creditors as well, if necessary on payment of a small charge?

The Attorney-General: I agree that this report should be available to the debtor and creditors, but it would be better to deal with the matter by rules. We have to provide for times of inspection and the payment of some fee. I will give an undertaking that it is our intention to provide for this in the rules.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Milner: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, after "debtor," to insert:
 and after hearing the debtor or any creditor.
Sub-section (6) provides that if the court is satisfied in the case of any debtor that the matters set out in Sub-section (1) are correct they may make a protection order. The object of this Amendment is to provide that notice shall be given to all concerned. Presumably in the majority of cases it will be the debtor who makes application, and ex hypothesi he will, of course, have an opportunity of coming before the court. Presumably, also, where the petitioning creditor, as he is called, makes application, notice will be given to the debtor, but what will be


the position of the other creditors in such a case? It may be that they would take exception to an order being made, and there ought to be provision for other creditors to be given notice at some stage of the proceedings. It may be that this is not the appropriate place at which to introduce such an Amendment or, again, the point may be provided for in the rules, but if some provision is made for the contingencies I have referred to I shall be satisfied.

The Attorney-General: The appropriate place for dealing with this point will be in the rules. In this form of procedure steps are taken to see that not only are the parties heard but that notice is given to other creditors; for example, provision would be made to give notice to a landlord's mortgagee. In any case we shall take steps to see that all persons concerned receive notice of what is happening.

Major Milner: On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Disclaimer of property and rescission of contracts.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 2, after "debtor," insert:
 which is subsisting at the date of the protection order."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Powers of court with respect to leases and other contracts.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 7, after "Where," insert" at the date of the protection order."

In line 11, leave out "or this Act."— [The Attorney-General.]

Major Milner: I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out lines 20 to 23.
According to the Clause, it would appear that the courts can only reduce the rent if the lettable value of the premises has fallen owing to war circumstances or to an amount less than the lettable value at the date of the Order, but in an evacuation area, for example,

the lettable value of premises in general may have risen, and in such an area and in such circumstances it might not be possible for the tenant to obtain a reduction of rent. It seems to me that some provision ought to be made for such a case. I gather that here the Government are trying to legislate by areas, so to speak, although I feel it would be more desirable to legislate on the merits of each particular case. I recognise, of course, that a landlord is entitled to consideration, and that it would perhaps be a hardship on him in some cases, though not in all, that if the premises were vacant and he could get a higher rent he should be compelled to take a lower rent, but it does not seem that he will be in any worse case than any ordinary creditor who, under this Bill, may have to forfeit some part of his claim. At any rate, I am drawing the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to this point as one which seems to me worthy of consideration.

Mr. Woodburn: I feel that this part of the Clause is of tremendous importance to a large number of people because it will give blitzed tenants the right to have some adjustment of their rent made by the liabilities officer if war damage or war circumstances have altered the circumstances in which the rent agreement was made. But a difficulty arises over the words "lettable value," because where practically a whole town has been blitzed the lettable value of such houses as remain may have risen considerably owing to a shortage of housing accommodation. A landlord might argue that though the condition of the house had deteriorated by more than 50 per cent., though the tenant might be able to occupy only one room, yet the lettable value of the house had actually increased, and certainly not diminished, owing to the scarcity of houses. I should like the Attorney-General to look into the point, because it is already raising considerable difficulties. I have heard of landlords in a severely blitzed area who have said that they would rather see their houses stand empty than reduce the rents by one penny. It cannot be the intention of the Government to cover cases like that, and I think the Clause should be altered in such a way as to refer to the condition of the houses as well as to its relative lettable value in comparison with other houses.

The Attorney-General: This Clause was not intended to deal with the problem of blitzed houses, and I do not think it does. It was intended to deal with cases like that, say, of a boarding-house in London or on the East Coast with a pre-war rent fixed on the value of boarding-house property in the area. Where the conditions have changed to the disadvantage of boarding-house keepers the landlord will, in 9 cases out of 10, if the tenant is a good tenant, have made a remission of the rent voluntarily, but the idea of this Clause is that the court should be able to say in a case coming before it, "If the landlord turned you out he could not get more than a certain rent for the house and therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, we reduce the rent by a certain amount." We put it that that rent should not be reduced below the value at which the premises could be let. We think that is right. If you are to give power to vary the contract under which a man is to remain in your house, it is right that you should set this limit to the variation. You should not leave the matter completely at large, which would put upon the court a discretion which really would not be fair.
In moving the Amendment, my hon. and gallant Friend spoke about the reception areas. In the main, people in those areas are not doing so badly. The hard cases arise in evacuation areas. He took a case where the value of the house was maintained or increased and the tenant said that he wanted his rent reduced. If hardships are to fall, not by reason of this Measure but because of war conditions, on a great many people who own property, they will also include hardships in letting the property. If a man who owns a house is in a position to say, "I could get another tenant at so much," it would be wrong to reduce the rent below that amount, and it would be an impossible discretion to confer upon the judge. It would be impracticable to accept the Amendment.

Major Milner: I am not quite sure that the Attorney-General is right in his argument. Is he not giving a preference to the landlord in this case? There will be debtors who have to take advantage of this Measure. Merely because they happen to be in an area where rents have increased, are they to be deprived of obtaining a reduction in their rents, and are

their landlords to have a preference over other creditors?

The Attorney-General: No. The other creditors would be put into the position in which my hon. and gallant Friend would put the landlord. It would not be fair to say to the butcher, "You have to go on supplying meat to this man at two-thirds of the ordinary price "Equally, you should not say to the landlord, "You must continue to let this man have possession of your house at a reduced price."

Major Milner: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. We are all trying to get the most desirable results. There is another argument which supports the right hon. and learned Gentleman's appeal, which is that if a landlord can get another tenant at a higher rent, he will be compelled by this Bill to continue to let to the present tenant at the same rent, that is to say, the rent which the tenant was previously paying. To that extent the landlord will be damnified, in that he will not be able to go into the open market and get a higher rent. Having regard to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, but I am not altogether happy about the position.

Mr. Woodburn: I have read the Clause again, and I am unable to see how a tenant in a blitzed area such as Clyde-bank, placed in a serious financial difficulty and unable to pay his rent, cannot apply for the benefit of this Measure and for the liabilities officer to adjust his rent with his landlord.

The Attorney-General: It is my fault. I did not mean to imply that persons who come under this Bill might not have their houses blitzed or that a house where a reduction of rent was in question might not have been blitzed. I wanted to remove what I thought was a misapprehension in the mind of my hon. and gallant Friend, and to make it clear that the general intention of the Clause was to cover, and that the Clause did cover, the case of a blitzed tenant who, without being in financial difficulties, felt that his case had to be dealt with.

Mr. Woodburn: I am glad that that point has been cleared up. I see also the possibility of a large family, where the


income has been seriously reduced, perhaps by the death of a breadwinner, finding itself in such serious financial circumstances that it is unable to pay the rent. So far as I understand the matter, the words "letting value" make it possible for the landlord to insist on the payment of the full rent, because the lettable value, owing to the area being blitzed, is perhaps above what the normal rent of the house would be. I referred him to the case—I hope there are very few like it, but I understand that there have been cases—where landlords in a blitzed area insisted on the full rent from people whose work necessitated their coming to the house, and would not have,an adjustment of this kind. It will be a great service to people who are suffering these difficulties if it is made clear that this Measure will bring them relief and adjustment of their difficulties upon a fair basis as between landlord and tenant.

Major Milner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 8, line 23, after the third "the," insert" liabilities adjustment."

In line 29, after "Where," insert" at the date of the protection order/'

In line 31, after "may," insert" provide in the liabilities adjustment order."

In line 34, leave out "vest," and insert "for the vesting of."—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, after "price," to insert
 and not being less than such a sum as added to the amount already paid by the debtor in respect to the hire-purchase price will equal the value of the goods at the date of the order.
This Amendment is one which I think is of rather substantial importance. I am moving it at the request of a body known as the Conjoint Conference of Public Utility Associations, with which are associated all the municipal and company gas and electricity undertakings, and in addition I know that the Amendment has the approval of the Hire-Purchase Trade Association. When goods are out on hire purchase the reason is, as a rule, that the man who is seeking the ultimate ownership of the goods does not want to pay all

the money down at once, and therefore, instead of entering into a transaction involving a direct sale, he enters into such a transaction that he can spread the cost over a substantial period of time. It happens that from time to time hire-purchase transactions come into the courts, indicating that some of these transactions have features which are not too desirable. Of course, it has always been the bad cases which have come before the courts. It is very important to bear that in mind, for so far as 99 per cent. of hire-purchase transactions are concerned, I think they have been fair to both sides. It has only been the bad cases that have received publicity, and as a result there is, in the minds of some of those who administer the law, a measure of prejudice against the hire-purchase trader. I know that from what a number of them have said to me. They sometimes feel that the man who is buying the goods on hire purchase is always right, while the seller is always wrong.
What is the position of the hire-purchase trader so far as this Bill is concerned? He is a person who is a secured creditor. I am not very expert in regard to the law on banks and the rest, but he is a creditor who has a security. He is a form of creditor such as is included in the first Sub-section of this Clause, which also deals with secured creditors. Let us imagine that, whenever you rented a house, you were forced to have a hire- purchase agreement so that ultimately you became the owner, and that Clause 1 applied exclusively to such people. If we apply the same principle to that, it will be seen that as the man is to have the house there is not much difference. We have just accepted a Sub-section under which, if it were made similar to Subsection (3), the tenant of the house would be informed that the house belonged to him since he had paid so many years' rent. There is some analogy; I do not want to push it too far.
Let us take another case. This Bill is primarily designed for the benefit, not of private individuals, but of people engaged in trade, because I think, broadly speaking, the Attorney-General will agree that the Bill is designed to keep afloat people in business who are in great difficulties because of the effects of the war on districts in which they carry on their business. I am a trader, and for the purpose


of my trade I need plant and machinery and I need materials. Over a period of years I may buy far more materials than machinery, but I do not buy the materials on hire purchase. I get deliveries at frequent intervals, and I get a monthly account due for payment within so many days, and in a period of, say, six years the supplier of the materials will have been paid for probably 95 per cent. of what he has supplied. Now we come to the person who has provided the machinery on which those materials will be turned into something that can be sold. That person, instead of sending in a bill once a month for, it may be, a hundreth part of the plant and getting paid for it— in which case the hundreth part has passed definitely to the trader—allows the trader to have the use of the whole plant and, if so much a month is paid for so long, the whole of the plant belongs to the trader. That brings us to the position in which this Bill is to apply. There are two creditors; one is the hire-purchase trader, and the other the one who has supplied materials. The latter has already had 95 per cent. of his bill paid in the past, and the hire-purchase trader has perhaps had only half of it, yet under this proposal he is to be treated infinitely worse than the supplier of the material.
It is no business of mine to defend hire-purchase traders because they are hire-purchase traders, but it is only fair and just that all classes of creditors should have an equal measure of justice given to them, and after all, it should be remembered that not every debtor is necessarily an entirely virtuous person. We must not base laws on the assumption that all creditors are rogues and all debtors angels. That, broadly speaking, is not true—I am inclined to think, in general, it is very much the reverse of true. It is the man who, in the ordinary way, does not incur heavy debts for whom I have the greatest respect. I think there is a substantial case for this Amendment, or alternatively for some other Amendment which will give some reasonable protection to the hire-purchase trader, first of all against the debtor who may be, in part, not too honest. But in any case I see no reason why a mortgagee, for example, should be put in a preferential position as compared with a hire-purchase trader. I think there ought to be equal justice for both.
I realise to the full that I am dealing with a matter in connection with which my own personal experience is very limited. I have tried to see the position fairly, and I sincerely trust that the Attorney-General, even if he cannot accept my Amendment in this form, will at least assure me that something will be done to protect the very large and very legitimate interests at stake. After all, the public utilities to which I have referred, both company and municipal, represent a capitalisation of £2,000,000,000. They are substantial people, and the money of the ratepayers is concerned to a substantial extent. The legitimate interests of the shareholders in the large public utility company are also at stake, and there is the general question of fair justice as between citizen and citizen. On those various grounds I move this Amendment, and hope the Attorney-General will find himself in a position to give me an encouraging reply.

The Attorney-General: When we were considering the provisions of this Bill it became clear that, whereas we had put what I call a stop upon the power of the courts to reduce rents, and while there is also a stop on the power of the courts to reduce mortgage interests, there was no such stop when we came to the exercise of discretion with regard to a hire-purchase contract. Under the strict bankruptcy law I think the hire-purchase trader is in a somewhat exceptionally favourable position. He can, I think, insist either on getting the full balance of the instalments or on taking possession of the article. In this class of case we felt that it would be unfair as between him and other creditors if that was the position, particularly having regard to the power of the courts in dealing with rent and mortgage interests. Hire purchase is a somewhat hybrid form of transaction. It is subject to the Purchase Tax, but it is in the form of hire, and has always presented certain difficulties in the direction of knowing exactly the fair way to treat it. I have always felt that if one could get a stop—that is to say, a figure below which it would be unreasonable to value the goods—it would be a prudent thing to do. But that would be difficult. It would seem to leave the matter too much at large, and I was not sure that it would be welcomed by those interests concerned. The value is usually fairly low


at the date of the order. The goods must have been used, since they are not as a rule vested in the debtor until there has been a substantial number of payments. The vast majority of those affected are, I agree, honest and reputable traders, taking an important part in the commercial life of the country, and I was not sure that they would rather have a stop.
I do not think it would be reasonable for the county court to make a vesting order if the sums paid or to be provided for did not amount to the present value of the article. If those concerned would like a provision to that effect inserted in the Bill, I am perfectly prepared to do that. We cannot accept the Amendment in its present form. I think that this condition would be better inserted as a proviso. Moreover, it does not cover the possible case of where 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the instalments might have been paid, and the court might properly make a vesting order without providing for any further payment. The Amendment assumes that there will always be provision for a further payment. We are very anxious to make it clear that we are trying to consider the interests of all concerned. This is not a debtor's relief Bill, but an attempt to get a fair arrangement between creditors and debtors, to tide people over a difficult time. I do not think that this proposal will operate unfairly to the debtor. I think it is a perfectly fair method to adopt, and I recommend the Committee to accept it in principle.

Sir H. Williams: I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. If I may, I will ask those at whose request I have moved this Amendment to get into touch with him in order to find agreement upon some proper form of words. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, at the end, to add:
 Provided also that no contract shall be varied under this subsection unless the parties to the contract have received notice of the proceedings before the court under this Act.
I put this Amendment down at the request of the Federation of British Industries, upon the executive committee of which I happen to serve. They were

a little perturbed because they thought there ought to be a security that nothing should be done without all parties concerned being informed. I rather gathered from the Minister's speech that, instead of being put into the Act, that will be done administratively, after the Bill has been passed. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will be good enough to put that on record. Then I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I quite agree with the principle that those concerned should be informed, and we shall provide for that to be done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Mortgagees).

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 10, to leave out "shall," and to insert "may."
It has been pointed out that the Clause seems to assume that in all cases the mortgagee would want to value because he would want to prove the balance of the debt, but that there may be cases where the mortgagee wishes simply to rest on his securities. In those cases, if there had to be a valuation that would simply mean incurring unnecessary costs, and a difficulty might arise at a later stage for purposes of discharge.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 9, line 13, leave out "the value of security," and insert "a security is valued and the value."

In line 19, leave out from the second "realised," to the first "the," in line 20. —[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 9, line 46, to leave out Subsection (4).
This Sub-section seems to introduce a far too rigid restriction upon the discretion of the court or of the adjustments officer. It says:
 The court shall not reduce the rate of interest under the last foregoing Sub-section, unless the annual amount payable by way of interest at the existing rate exceeds the net annual profits….
There may be circumstances, which can-not be foreseen in the Bill, which might require that that rate of interest should be reduced, to leave a margin.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment. Thisis rather similar to the point that we discussed just now of the reduction of rent and to the point we discussed of the reduction of hire purchase. It must be appreciated that in this class of case the mortgagee is being deprived of his normal contractual rights, and the question is how far it is legitimate to go in that direction in these circumstances. The court has the power to reduce the rate of interest if the annual amount payable at the existing rate exceeds the net annual value of the mortgaged property. I think that it would be going beyond what was right to say that interest should be reduced in such circumstances. This is very like the other point. We want the Bill to be fair as between all those who are interested. I think that the present power to reduce interest is right and that the net annual value is a fair condition.

Mr. Woodburn: It does seem that under this legislation—and it carries our minds back to the War Damage Bill—that the whole of the benefits have always to be on the side of the mortgagee rather than giving any relief to the mortgagor. An insurance company insuring goods is let out of its liability if the damage is the result of an act of God or an act of war; the person who insures does not get the full benefit of his contract if it is an act of God or an act of war.

Mr. Denman: It is not in the contract.

Mr. Woodburn: Exactly. When these contracts that we are discussing now were made no one anticipated that there would be an act of war and liabilities would occur such as have occurred. Both the War Damage Act and this Bill are introduced in order, as the Attorney-General said, to be fair to both parties. It appears to me to be reasonable that, if there is to be fairness to both parties, both parties must bear some of the loss. There is just a suggestion that on every occasion the mortgagee must be protected up to the hilt, and no margin is left for the mortgagor. The Attorney-General recalled the point that I made with regard to the War Damage Act that in the case of a person whose house has been destroyed and who is not going to get the cost of works payment, all the value might go to the mortgagee, and that the

mortgagor, although he might have put all his savings into the part-payment of the house, would get nothing. I would ask the Attorney-General to leave some discretion to the court to deal in a fair way with all parties.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out lines 1 and 2, and to insert:
 value of the mortgaged property at the date o£ the order.
This Amendment and a later one, to Clause 10, which comes next on the Paper, have to be read with the definition of "net annual value" which is inserted by a later Amendment. The point is an extremely simple one and obviously commends itself to everybody. It is to make it clear that, if the annual value changes —it might go up or down—then application can be made to adjust the amount in respect of any change in annual value.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Interim orders, variation and revocation of orders, etc.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 7, at the end, to insert:
 and, in particular, where a liabilities adjustment order reduces the rent of any premises or the rate of mortgage interest payable in respect of any mortgaged property, an application for the variation of the order may be made on the ground that the lettable value of the premises or, as the case may be, the net annual value of the mortgaged property has altered since the date of the order.
This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Order of discharge.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, after "possession," to insert:
 by virtue of the exercise of the powers of the court.
This Amendment and the two following Amendments standing in my name are really drafting Amendments. Sub-sec-


tion (2) of this Clause only applies in cases where the powers are still being exercised in respect of the lease or contract.

Amendment agreed to.

Further amendments made:

In page 13, line 17, after the first "or," insert" subject to a."

In line 18, leave out from "contract," to" in," in line 19, and insert:
 the repayment or performance of which is provided for.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Power to continue adjustment proceedings in relation to estate of deceased debtor.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 37, to leave out "if it," and to insert "Provided that, if the court."
This is the Clause which deals with the continuation of adjustment proceedings if the original debtor has died. It provided, as the Committee will remember, that the proceedings should continue if the court was satisfied that the estate would accrue wholly or mainly to members of the debtor's family. I think that it was obviously a sensible provision. It has been pointed out to us that it might be some time before that could finally be ascertained. This Amendment and the two following Amendments, therefore, put the thing round the other way. They entitle the court to continue unless it is satisfied that the benefits are going to people other than the debtor's family. It will prevent a certain amount of delay. In the ordinary case inquiries will be made apparently, and it will be clear whether the estate comes within the Clause or not, and I think it improves the Clause to put it in this way.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 13, line 39, after "to." insert "persons other than."

In line 39, at the end, insert "it shall discontinue the proceedings.—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir A. Maitland: I beg to move, in page 14, line 13, after "bankruptcy," to insert:

 (except the provisions with respect to the priorities of debts and liabilities).
I can put the purpose of this Amendment very briefly. The effect of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3), as I understand it, is to deprive those persons where the estate is insolvent of the right to have their debts paid in priority. I raise this question because, although I understand there has been some correspondence between the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Attorney-General, there is still some doubt in the minds of local authorities as to whether they are in fact deprived of that right in the case of people coming under this Clause. If we could have an assurance that they are under some misapprehension, I should at once be able to withdraw the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: This Clause provides that in certain cases, if a debtor dies, proceedings shall continue. The proceedings which are to continue are, of course, based on the principles of this Measure, and it is, therefore, necessary to provide, as is done under Sub-section (2, a), that if an estate is insolvent, Section 34 of the Administration of Estates Act shall not apply. If that were not done, it would be dealt with according to ordinary insolvency principles regarding a bankruptcy estate. My hon. Friend and those with him are afraid that that will mean that priorities in which they are interested will not apply. They are wrong about that, because if my hon. Friend will look at Clause 9, he will find that the priority of debts which he has in mind is a very important principle of this Bill. It shows that priorities under Section 3 of the Bankruptcy Act, which are the ones he has in mind concerning local authorities' rates and taxes, are one of the principles of this Bill. That principle will apply to the estate of the deceased debtor, because the court is enjoined to continue to deal with the estate under this Bill. Having already got the priorities provided for under the Bill, it would be wrong to do what the Amendment proposes to do—to have them in the second time under insolvency proceedings.

Sir A. Maitland: I am much obliged for that assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 14, line 42, leave out "exercises its powers under," and insert:
 continue the liabilities adjustment proceedings, or discontinues any such proceedings under the proviso to subsection (1) of."—[The Attorney-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Douglas: There is a point on this Clause which I should like to put to the Attorney-General. As I understand it, the Clause applies only in the case where a person dies during the course of liabilities adjustment proceedings, that is, where there is something before the court, but there does not appear to be any provision for a case in which action has been taken by the liabilities adjustment officer under Clause 1 of the Bill. I would like the Attorney-General to consider whether there is not a gap which ought to be filled so as to cover the case where the debtor dies before the scheme made by the liabilities adjustment officer has been brought to fruition.

The Attorney-General: I will look into that case and make sure. What the hon. Gentleman has put to me is a case where the; scheme is operative, but if there is anything we have overlooked in providing for what should happen when death follows the scheme, I will look into it.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Rules.) Amendment made:

In page 19, line 1, insert new paragraph:
 (d) [may prescribe the fees to be paid in respect of the services of liabilities adjustment officers;]."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Effect of liabilities adjustment proceedings or scheme of arrangement on persons liable jointly or as sureties.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 19, line 41, to leave out from

' order," to "any," in line 43, and to insert:
 varies under Section six or Section seven of this Act the terms of.
This is one of three Amendments to this Clause which stand in my name on the Order Paper. It is made to help remove a misunderstanding with regard to the scope and intention of the Clause, and it concerns the effect of liabilities adjustment proceedings or a scheme of arrangement on persons liable jointly or as securities. An important case I have in mind is a case where rent is reduced under the Clause which we were considering earlier or where the mortgage interest is reduced. The reference in the Clause as to providing "a scheme of arrangement approved under this Part of this Act "led, I think, to a misapprehension and made people think this Clause went wider than it does. They thought that where there was simply an ordinary debt for £50 or a loan which had been guaranteed, the guarantor would get off if the debtor was able to pay only 10s. in the £. That was never our intention. If a debt is guaranteed, then the guarantor must pay, and references to any other contract are references to contracts varying under Section 7 of the Act, and the only circumstance in which an executory contract can be varied is where the variation is in the interest of both parties and where, of course, he could otherwise disclaim. These are the three cases where the sureties' liabilities may be cut down. It is not effective in the case of an ordinary debt. Where the rent is reduced, the surety liability goes with it. Where the mortgage interest is reduced, the surety liability goes with it. The executory contract can be varied. The first two Amendments are drafting, and the third Amendment proposes to leave out the words, "or a person in the nature of a surety." Those words are taken from the Bankruptcy Act. I am not clear what a person in the nature of a surety is, and whether, indeed, there are any such persons.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that the Attorney-General made a statement which very conveniently dealt with the whole significance of the Clause, I think it might save time, Colonel Clifton Brown, if I could go a little beyond the scope of the Amendment, because frankly I am in a realm with which I am not very


familiar. My right hon. and learned Friend is aware that many people are greatly perturbed about this Clause. They regard it as something which relieves certain people who undertake certain obligations from their obligations because somebody else is in trouble. As I understand it, if one goes surety for a man, the object is that if he cannot do the job, one has to pay up. If circumstances arise in which a person cannot do the job, this Clause appears to relieve the man who has gone guarantee for him. I should like to be told what is the exact effect of the Amendments that are proposed. I think the minds of all hon. Members might be influenced to some extent by an explanation of that sort.

The Attorney-General: If the Committee agree, I think it would be convenient if we had a general discussion on the Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): If the Committee agree to this, I think it would be a suitable course. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) which might not be covered, but that could be put separately afterwards.

The Attorney-General: I think it would be covered.

Sir William Davison: I should like to say a few words about my Amendment.

Sir A. Maitland: Would it not be better if my right hon. and learned Friend had some idea of the points we wish to make, so that he could answer them?

The Attorney-General: I have some idea.

Sir A. Maitland: May I put one point to the Attorney-General? Will he consider the deletion of the Clause as a whole? That strikes me as being the most effective way of dealing with the matter.

The Attorney-General: I quite understand that this Clause is one which has raised some apprehensions and that it requires discussion. As I have already said, I think some of the apprehensions are unfounded. I will leave aside for a moment the reference in the Clause to "contract other than a hire-purchase agreement," and will consider leases and

mortgages. That is the case with which the Clause is intended particularly to deal, and with which I think it deals logically. If, under Clause 6, the court decides to reduce the rent, the reason will be that, owing to war conditions, which neither landlord, tenant nor guarantor contemplated, the house is very likely to become as near as may be unlettable, while there is a pre-war rent of, it may be, £400. I will quote a case which has come to my notice. I do not do so because hard cases make good Acts of Parliament, but the possibility of hard cases is very often a very good reason for inserting a provision of this kind in a Bill. The case which I am about to quote would not be an isolated one. It is a case where a youngish man took a boarding house, it may have been for seven or 10 years, at a rent which was in the neighbourhood of £400 a year. It was in a part of the country where war conditions rendered the whole thing unprofitable. When he entered into the lease, the landlord not unreasonably got the man's mother to give a guarantee for the rent. In normal times, what would have happened if the son had failed in his business would have been this. He might have got into arrears and if he had gone on failing, it would have become apparent fairly soon that he could not run the business and that he had better take up some other line of business. The limit of his mother's responsibility would have been comparatively small. The landlord would have applied to her, and she would have taken the matter up with her son, and would have said to him, "If you cannot make it pay, you had better clear out and let the landlord regain possession." The matter would have solved itself with a comparatively small liability to the guarantor.
The war has produced a very different set of circumstances. The landlord, in the circumstances, does not want possession; he cannot get another tenant, and the building is simply an uneconomic structure. I quite agree that the man could file a petition in bankruptcy and disclaim the lease, but nobody wants him to be forced to do that. Short of that, however, and but for this Clause, the mother in this case would have to go on paying the full rent of the uneconomic structure. It might take the whole of her resources or her savings. What we


say is that we are not dealing with the normal ups and downs of success and failure which people look for guarantors to cover. We are dealing with a case where war circumstances have rendered the particular buildings uneconomic structures, possibly for a long period. Where they are unlettable or lettable only at a very reduced value, it is reasonable that the guarantor's liability should come down, too, for otherwise the landlord could get the full pre-war rent from the guarantor, the guarantor would be en-titled to go to the debtor for what he had had to pay, and in effect, if the debtor had any resources, one would not be reducing the rent as far as he was concerned to anything like the figure one appeared to be. Although he would have to pay only, say, £50 to the landlord, the landlord would get the remainder from the guarantor, and the guarantor would come back to the debtor for the balance of what he had had to pay. If the debtor had resources he would have to pay too. That is the case of rent and I think it is fair. As far as ordinary debts are concerned, that is to say debts for goods supplied or services rendered, the guarantor remains under his liability and that can be enforced. What I have said about rent applies also in substance to cases in which there is this limited reduction of mortgage interest. At present there are these words in the Clause "or contract." They are clearly qualified by the words now to be inserted—" varied under Subsections (6) or (7)." Clause 6, Sub-section (4)—this is the only case where guarantors under contracts might be relieved —states:
 Where it appears to the court that it would be in the interests of all parties under a contract …which could be disclaimed under the last foregoing section that the contract should continue in effect in a varied form rather than be disclaimed, the court may in the liabilities adjustment order vary the contract accordingly.
That is limited to executors' contracts and to cases where it is in the interest of all parties. I have been told by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and others that, in a great many cases, local authorities take a guarantor not so much for a money payment but for performance. Where a man puts in a tender for building, someone guarantees his performance. I suppose there is some penalty if the work is not done to time, or is not up to quality. That was not the

type of surety we had in mind. I am not sure how it would arise. It may be that, without damage, we could leave out the reference in this Clause to contracts and confine it to leases and mortgages. I should like a little more time to look into the matter. I do not want to do anything which would prejudice either local authorities, or contractors in the sort of case which my hon. Friend has put to me. Supposing one of those people who got into difficulties was a contractor to a local authority. He might be able to disclaim the contract or he might be able to continue it with variations. I should like to know rather more than I do about the terms of these guarantees. It may be that the question of the guarantor can be left where it is. On the other hand, it may be that it would be desirable to give him some relief. However, I should like to look at the matter more fully. I hope I have described the sort of cases we intended to meet.

Sir W. Davison: As the Attorney-General has just said, this Bill, with the general approval of all parties, was introduced mainly in order to keep in being small businesses, lodging-house keepers, boarding-house keepers, and others. Its object was to enable them to tide over a difficult time, and to have equitable arrangements made between themselves and their landlords, so that, in the interests of both parties, the businesses could start again after the war on the same footing as before. It seems to me, however, that this Clause goes very much further than the main objects of the Bill. The Committee will remember—and I "nave drawn the attention of the Attorney-General to it in private—that it is practically the universal custom of local authorities, when entering into contracts involving substantial amounts, to require a surety. Until 1933 this was obligatory under the Public Health Act, 1875, in cases where the amount involved exceeded £100. This was repealed by the Local Government Act, 1933, Section 266 of which provides a local authority with powers, almost directions, to establish Standing Orders to carry this into effect. Mode! Standing Orders were prepared by the Ministry of Health, and a common form of Standing Order was supplied and adopted by practically all local authorities. I have a copy of that Standing Order with me which states:


 Every contract which exceeds £100 in value or amount and is either for the execution of works or for the supply of goods or materials otherwise than at one time shall provide for some pecuniary penalty to be paid by the contractor in case the terms of the contract are not duly performed and the Council shall require and take sufficient security for the due performance of every such contract.
That, I believe, is the universal practice. The Attorney-General asked for instances. With regard to the supply of particular things it is the common practice among local authorities to take the lowest tender. It would add greatly to their burdens if in every case they had to make elaborate inquiries into the stability of the lowest tendering contractor and whether he could carry out the work for, say, paving, painting railings or lamp-posts, tar spraying, building contracts, etc., and the thousand and one other things which local authorities have to do. Therefore they adopted this method of asking for a guarantor to guarantee the due performance of the contract. The way it works is this. Supposing a local authority asks a contractor to supply building material or shovels, for which he has submitted a tender, and then he says that he cannot supply them. The local authority in that case can go into the market and find out the best terms on which they can obtain the shovels or the building material—then they can ask the guarantor to pay the difference between the amount in the contract and what the local authority has paid.
That seems to me to be something quite different from the real objects of this Bill. I am anxious to make it quite clear that the Bill is not intended to deprive local authorities of this practice of obtaining guarantees for the fulfilment of contracts by contractors. It is a system which has been universally admitted by Parliament as a proper system to adopt, and it is very much in the public interest. I know it was not intended to include such matters as those to which I have just alluded and, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not like my proviso, perhaps he will put in some other words which will make it clear that the Bill is not intended to apply to guarantees of contracts such as I have described.

Sir H. Williams: I am completely in agreement with what my hon. Friend has said, but I am anxious that this should

not be limited to contracts with local authorities, because the same thing happens in industry. I have had representations from the Association of Municipal Corporations and also from the Federation of British Industries, who are concerned with identically the same problem, where a third party guarantees the performance of that contract between two others. That is a legitimate form of guarantee and it does not necessarily follow that there should be complete exemption for these people. The Clause seems to me to be rigid: the words of my Amendment would make it more elastic. It is a proposal that all the circumstances shall be taken into account. It may well be that someone has insured with a well-to-do corporation for the performance of a specific task. We relieve the person who has failed to do that task, in certain directions, but this may be the eventuality against which he has insured. There is a wider problem affecting the position of building societies. There, again, I think there is a problem to be examined. Possibly at the conclusion of our discussion the Attorney-General may find himself in a position to state that the whole Clause will be re-examined before Report.

Sir A. Maitland: I should like to endorse my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Attorney-General has recognised the disquietude which the Clause has caused. We should bear in mind that in the peculiar circumstances of to-day our proceedings do not get the publicity which they would receive in normal times. We may be passing very important Measures, the full significance of which is not realised by people who, in normal times, would certainly have something to say about them. While we have the greatest sympathy with the genuine desire of the Government to help distressed debtors, these provisions are likely to have reactions which deserve consideration as much as the difficulties of the debtor. I know a pathetic case of two old people, the owners of two houses, which represent their life savings and their sole means of support. It is a hard case, similar to that which the Attorney-General mentioned. It seems to me that by this Clause you are defeating a very important principle which is adopted in ordinary day-to-day transactions and doing something which will have a retrospective effect and


extend the possibility of further trouble. I sincerely hope the Attorney-General will reconsider the whole question in the light of the effect upon local authorities and contracts generally. If this Clause is carried as it was first put down, even in the light of the Attorney-General's Amendments, which are Amendments of form rather than of substance, it will do a good deal of harm. As there are grave doubts about it, I suggest the best method is to leave it out.

Mr. Douglas: I desire to support this Clause, for it is based upon a sound principle. The idea which underlies it is that the liability of the surety should not be increased by the operation of the Bill. It is not intended to relieve him of such amount of liability as he would have been under in any case, if this legislation had not been passed. If it is passed, surely it is unfair that the surety's liability should be increased by something which he could not possibly have foreseen, which was never in contemplation when he entered into the contract of suretyship, and which is an extraneous thing imposed by Parliament. If the Clause is omitted, it may tend to destroy the purpose of the Rill because the court is not under any obligation to make an order under the liabilities adjustment procedure. The court has merely a permissive power, a discretion as to what action it shall take, and, exercising that discretion, it may very well have regard to what the consequences will be upon a surety. If this provision is omitted, the court will be restricted in its power to deal with the application of the debtor by consideration of the fact that it will be increasing the liability of the surety and it will be unable to give the surety any relief whatever. To meet that case is the purpose of this Clause, and it is a sound purpose. Therefore, it ought to apply in every case.
I am very interested in local authorities, but I cannot come here and ask for a special privilege to be granted to them in this Bill in regard to their sureties which is not given to other people. A provision of that kind would not be fair. Once that is admitted, the argument is admitted for extending it to private corporations, building societies and other people, and if it is extended in that way, the whole purpose of the Clause will be weakened and more unfairness will be

caused. We are dealing with a very exceptional situation and with legislation of an exceptional character which is intended to protect debtors and to prevent the full extent of the law being applied to them, in bankruptcy or otherwise, as it could be at the present moment. In doing that, we are automatically affecting the position of sureties, and we ought not to obtain relief for the debtor at the expense of imposing on the surety an obligation which was never and could never have been in contemplation.

The Attorney-General: I would like to emphasise again what my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) has made clear, that this Clause is deemed to deal only with cases in which under the Bill the court has power to order the continuation of a contract in a varied form that is to keep alive leases and mortgages. The important cases we have in mind are leases and mortgages. We added the words "or contracts ", but the Committee will see in Clause 6(4) that the only cases in which contracts other than leases or mortgages are concerned are those in which:
 it appears to the court that it would be in the interest of all parties under a contract … which could be disclaimed … that the contract should continue in effect in a varied form.
That does not, in terms, say that all the parties have to agree to the continuation, but it implies it in substance. The court in deciding whether it should be continued in a varied form is to be satisfied that it is in the interests of everybody. If either debtor or creditor says, "I do not want it in that form; it is no good to me ", the court can exercise its discretion. That being the only form of contract which can come in, my view, particularly in view of what we have heard about local authority contracts, is that the best thing is to leave out of the Clause references to other contracts. They have obviously caused a good deal of misunderstanding, and I do not think, looking at Clause 6(4), that they really fulfil any useful purpose. The guarantor himself would be a party and would be entitled to be heard under Clause 6(4), and what is contemplated by that Sub-section is quite a different sort of arrangement by agreement from what is contemplated under Clause 18. I do not think that local authority contracts would really have been affected by this Clause, although difficult points might


have arisen as to whether they were or were not. It was not the type of guarantee we had in mind and it is not the type of guarantee which would be made more onerous by the operation of this Bill. It could only be extended by Clause 6(4) when it was for everybody's benefit.
It would be to the advantage of everybody and to the disadvantage of nobody if we deleted on the Report stage the references in the Clause to other contracts. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland), who was particularly concerned with local authority contracts and contracts of that form, thought that the Clause should be left out altogether, but while there is no case for retaining the words referring to contracts, I think that, as far as leases and mortgage interest are concerned, the Clause is right. Where rent is reduced under Clause 6, or mortgage interest is reduced under Clause 7, I think that it would be right that the guarantor's liability should be affected. I will look into the Clause again with a view of taking contracts out and leaving in leases and mortgages.

Major Milner: I am inclined to think that the Attorney-General is right in his view. The essential thing is that where sacrifices have to be made they should be fairly and equitably spread, and it seems tome that if this matter were dealt with in the way he has suggested the power to ensure that would be given to the Court. It also seems to me that it is right to exclude "other contracts," because frequently they are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) said, subjects of insurance policies, or payments have been made in respect of them, and therefore it would not be right to give relief in those cases. At the same time, there will continue to be some feeling that a guarantor ought to obtain relief in the same way as the person whom he has guaranteed is relieved, and in such cases perhaps relief might be granted on the overriding principle set out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, namely, that at the time it could not have been within the contemplation of the parties that circumstances of war would cause a default on the part of the principal debtor. In such cases, therefore, I think that relief might equally well be granted. I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman

will bring up a further Amendment on the Report stage and that we shall then have an opportunity of looking at the matter again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 19, line 46, leave out "him," and insert" the debtor."

In line 46, leave out from "surety," to "for," in line 47.—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 20, line 3, to leave out "such person," and to insert:
 person who is a surety or in the nature of a surety for the debtor or is jointly bound with him.

Mr. Denman: A few moments ago the Attorney-General told us that he had no idea what the words "in the nature of a surety "meant. In view of that does he now wish to insert them here?

The Attorney-General: In this Subsection the words are used in a negative form. They are words which occur in the Bankruptcy Act, in which there is a provision that nothing shall affect a person who is a surety or in the nature of a surety. There it does not much matter. In Sub-section (1) of this Clause we are defining a class of persons to be brought within the jurisdiction, and for that positive purpose it seemed undesirable that we should have a vague form of words. I agree that there does seem to be some inconsistency, but if we pass the words now it will be possible to leave them out on Report stage if it is thought desirable.

Mr. Denman: I should like to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I have no personal objection to those words.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 4, leave out "him," and insert "any such person."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 20.—(Provisions as to courts.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major Milner: This Clause confers jurisdiction upon county courts, and a


question has been raised whether the publicity of the proceedings in those courts may not prevent deserving cases applying to them for relief. I do not know what view the Attorney-General may take on that question, but in my experience, latterly at any rate, not much publicity has been given to proceedings of this nature. Of course bankruptcy proceedings, applications for discharge and so on are reported. It may be that it will be sufficient if special courts are held to deal with these cases. I do not think we ought to insist on no publicity at all being given to these proceedings, but, on the other hand, one would wish that some discrimination should be exercised. Those who brought this point to my attention were very much concerned lest by reason of the fear of publicity many people might not take advantage of this Measure who otherwise would do so. I do not altogether subscribe to that view, but I should like an assurance from the Attorney-General, if it is possible for him to give it, that discretion will be exercised and that perhaps special courts will be held. Of course, the court cannot prevent legal proceedings being reported, but the Press themselves may exercise a wise discretion in not reporting proceedings of this nature, unless there are special circumstances which make it desirable.

The Attorney-General: One of the objects in providing for liabilities adjustment officers was to secure a procedure which would operate, we hoped, without any publicity at all. I think it would be impossible, and wrong, to have some special Rule under which these matters were to be heard in camera. Personally, I should doubt whether there is likely to be much publicity, beyond, of course, the publicity which is essential in order that creditors may know what is happening. In most of these cases, there will not, I think, be anything of general interest to the public, and one hopes that not much publicity, or at any rate no unnecessary publicity, will be given to them, and that people will not be deterred from taking advantage of this legislation for fear of publicity. I do not think however we should make any special Rule on the point.

Mr. Douglas: There is nothing in the Bill which shows that cases will necessarily come before the county court judge himself. It may well be that a great

number of cases which are of a simple nature will come before the registrar in chambers, and then there will not be any publicity. If there is a dispute, the matter will have to come before the judge, and it may be advisable in such cases that there should not be undue secrecy.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 21 and 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 23.—(Extent of Part I).

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 21, line 34, after "England," to insert:
 or has property situated in England.
The object of this Amendment is to fill a gap which I believe exists in the Bill, relating to persons who may make use of the proposed relief. At present, the Bill applies only to persons who ordinarily reside in England, carry on business in England or are members of firms which do so. On the other hand, there are people who, but for the war, would have been ordinarily resident here, but who may have been evacuated to Scotland, Ireland or elsewhere. I know a number of such cases in which the only income arises from property here. Their only liabilities, apart from their day-to-day expenses, are in connection with that property. One can say that they have ceased to be ordinarily resident in England. I believe that this difficulty is solved for Income Tax purposes by such people being regarded as resident for the greater part of the year. It seems unfortunate that those people should, by accident, be deprived of the advantage of this Measure available in other cases.
I think it would be better if the provision in regard to businesses and firms were left out, and the Bill applied merely to individuals in respect of their private obligations. There might be more logic in it. As it is, there is an arbitrary distinction between people who have property here, because they are carrying on business, and who are entitled to this relief and other people who may be equally deserving, but who because they are not carrying on business, although their property and its liabilities are here, cannot do so. I hope that the Attorney-General will give a sympathetic consideration to removing this distinction from the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I hope that I shall consider this Amendment and all others sympathetically, but I am not sure that I can consider this Amendment a good one. The proper jurisdiction, or rather the most convenient, in cases of this kind, is the jurisdiction of the place where the majority of the creditors are. We want to try to get all these people to agree, and we have done our best to arrive at that result by taking those who are either ordinarily resident here or have business here. "Ordinary residence" will probably mean the place where the rent liability arises, and where the tradesmen will present their bills. Of course, we cannot satisfy everybody, but I think the arrangement which we propose will satisfy the maximum number of creditors. Obviously if a man is carrying on business in a place, his creditors will be likely to be found there also. For a man who is fortunate enough to live in Scotland and to have his business in England, we thought it right that he ought to come under the Bill, because this is the place where his affairs would have to be wound up. I can relieve my hon. Friend of anxiety on one point. Perhaps he would look at Sub-section (1) of this Clause. I think those words meet one of the points which he made. Apart from that, if we accepted the Amendment, it would produce the result that a man living in Scotland who happened to have some small piece of property in England would not come under the Bill, and the creditors in England of a debtor in Scotland could not start proceedings.

Mr. Douglas: In view of the statement by the Attorney-General I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, merely adding that I would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this matter again, because I think there are still difficulties which have to be solved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 22, line 7, leave out "this Part," and insert "Section six and Section seven."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25 —(Extension of Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1939 and 1940,to contracts made after the commencement of war.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 23, line 17, to leave out from "into," to the first "the," in line 19.
This Amendment deals with a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) during the Second Reading Debate when he pointed out that circumstances might arise which could not reasonably be contemplated by the parties. We hope that the possibilities which he contemplated will not materialise. I therefore think it is a good point. These words are difficult to apply and necessarily narrow, and may well be omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 23, line 29, after "Act," insert:
 (other than those mentioned in paragraph (c) and paragraph (d) of the proviso to that Sub-section)."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 27 (Interpretation.)

Amendments made:

In page 25, line 34, after the second "a," insert "provable."

In line 35, at the end, insert:
 ' net annual value,' in relation to any mortgaged property, means the net annual profits which, in the opinion of the court, the property could reasonably be expected to produce."— [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 28.—(Short title and commencement.)

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 26, line 3, to leave out from "shall," to "expire," in line 4.
I have put down this Amendment in order to stress the desirability of this legislation being brought into operation as quickly as possible. It is now some weeks since I put it upon the Order Paper, and the Bill was brought from the other House a month ago. The war is impinging more and more harshly, naturally and inevitably, upon a great many people, and the operations of the Attorney-


General's colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, in regard to the concentration of industry and many other things, are creating difficulties. The Measure ought to be applied as speedily as possible, and if there is any possibility of bringing it into operation sooner than the date which is contemplated, it would certainly be a very good thing.

The Attorney-General: When my hon. Friend speaks he gives the impression of being a very accurate man, but it is sometimes a misleading impression. He said that this Bill was brought in months ago—

Mr. Douglas: No, Sir, I said one month ago.

The Attorney-General: I beg your pardon, Sir. I misheard.

Mr. Douglas: I said I put down the Amendment some weeks ago.

The Attorney-General: There is a lot of work to be done on this Bill, and I do not think we can proceed more speedily. The time spent since the Bill was brought in has not been wasted. We have been considering these other matters, and although I agree that it is very desirable that it should be expedited, I do not think this Amendment will be of any use.

Mr. Douglas: In view of the Attorney-General's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption from stamp duties.)

Where a protection order is made, or a scheme of arrangement is approved, under this part of this Act—
(a)every deed, conveyance, assignment or other instrument relating solely to property which was the property of the debtor at the date of the protection order or of the approval of the scheme and which, after the execution of the instrument, is or remains his property or the property of a trustee appointed under the order or for the purposes of the scheme;
(b)every power of attorney, proxy paper, writ, order, certificate, affidavit, bond or Other instrument required for the purposes of the liabilities adjustment proceedings or the scheme of arrangement:
shall be exempt from stamp duties, except in respect of fees chargeable under this Act.— [The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second times, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

PUBLIC AND OTHER SCHOOLS (WAR CONDITIONS) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN IN THE CHAIR.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to make orders with respect to certain schools.)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 27, to leave out the words "or capital."
This Amendment, I regret, has only been put in in manuscript form. My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) and myself wished to put it down in the belief that the Bill was coming on next week. Its object is to secure from the President of the Board an assurance that every care will be taken to provide that capital shall be replaced if it be used in consequence of a scheme to be carried through under the provisions of the Bill. It is quite obvious that the use of income in a war-time emergency stands on an entirely different footing from the use of capital, and while there is everything to be said for diverting income that is not likely to be profitably used during the war to an urgent need of the school, it is very undesirable that capital should be used in that way unless very careful provision is made for its replacement over a period of years during the happier days of peace-time. I think that would be an object which would commend itself to everybody who believes it to be desirable to continue the trusts under which capital is held, and I hope that the President may see his way to give an assurance to the Committee that in all cases where a scheme is prepared, provision will be made for the replacement of capital to be used under the terms of this scheme, although, of course, that replacement may take place, in some cases, over a long perod of years. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an assurance of that kind.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am certain the hon. Member does not expect me to accept the Amendment as it stands, but I am very willing to assure him, as far as I can, on the point he has in mind, which is, of course, of considerable importance. Indeed, in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill I said that I was sure the House would agree with me that it would be most undesirable to spend trust capital on current needs unless that capital could be replaced. There are various safeguards in the Bill which make it very difficult improperly or rashly to use capital without an opportunity being given to the House to raise objections. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will bear his point carefully in mind. I do not think these occasions for the use of capital will be very numerous, but where they do arise they will be subject to very careful consideration.

Mr. Harvey: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. A. Bevan: I am sorry that a better opportunity was not afforded for us to make one or two Amendments on the Committee stage. It is quite clear, from the Ruling we had last week, that our opportunities for Debate would be very much curtailed. So far as I am concerned, I can only say that if one agrees with the principle of the Bill, the Bill itself is an effective instrument to achieve that purpose; and I had no special occasion to want to put down Amendments in Committee. As I tried to make clear last week, I do not sympathise with the general purposes of the Bill. It is not my intention, however, to be obstructive at this stage.
There is a great deal of feeling about this matter. Anyone who has studied the controversy in educational journals during the last six months will know that there is a large body of opinion that the time

has arrived for the public schools of Great Britain to be drastically remodelled. I hope that that opinion will soon find expression in pressure upon the Government. I do not agree that these are things that ought necessarily to be left until after the war. There are very grave reasons why they should be dealt with during the war. One of the main reasons why the public schools of Great Britain should be reorganised is that that would reassure people that desirable changes are taking place in the social structure of Great Britain. That would be a contribution to the maintenance of morale behind the war effort. There is also a great body of opinion, which is not sufficiently articulate, that the public schools should be allowed to die a natural death. Some would like them to die a little more violently.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I must remind the hon. Member that we are discussing what is in the Bill, and not what should be there.

Mr. Bevan: I agree that the discussion on the Third Reading is bound to be much narrower than that on the Second Reading. It was impossible to discuss the Bill on the Second Reading, and our difficulties are bound to be greater now. I appreciate that; and I shall not come into conflict with your Ruling, Sir, for a moment. As I said on the Second Reading, it appears to be more in order to praise this Bill than to condemn it. But I hope that the Government will seek an early opportunity of meeting a representative body of educational opinion on this matter—which has not been done, I regret to say, on this occasion—and try to bring about a reconstruction of the public schools system in accordance with civilised and intelligent needs.

Sir Annesley Somerville: I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in his inability to discuss the possibility of keeping the public schools alive. He has spoken of their dying a natural death. I should not be surprised if he would like to see them die a violent death. This Bill is of narrow scope, and he is precluded from starting an argument, in which I should have been delighted to take part, as to the merits or otherwise of the public schools. This is a limited Measure, to give public schools power to apply capital


which is extremely necessary for their continued existence. That capital, as provided by a number of benevolent well-wishers and well-doers of the schools, might be very well disposed of in accordance with the terms of the Bill. I happen to be one of the governors of a school which has a number of trusts that have been provided for it from various sources. I am sure that the donors of the money would have been only too glad that this Bill should pass, and that the school, which is doing very useful work, should have power to apply the money to immediate and pressing needs. I welcome the Bill, which I think will be of very considerable use to the public schools.

Mr. Ammon: I apologise for not having been present to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name—in Clause 1, page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert: "
 (together with a statement of accounts giving all the information necessary to determine whether the making of an Order in Council or an order is expedient).
To a large extent I have been hoist with my own petard, for I have been upstairs in Committee, and had arranged for the Debate to be kept running until I got reinforcements, but forgot to arrange for myself to be here. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), I found considerable difficulty in discussing the Bill on Second Reading, and it will not be easier for me on the Third Reading. I know that it will be very difficult to make any reference to an Amendment which has not been moved. Therefore, I shall content myself—and I think this might be within the rules of Order—by asking the Minister to say whether he is likely, administratively, to meet the point raised in the Amendment.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Much as I sympathise with the hon. Member, I am

very chary of replying to the last request, because I am not sure whether I should be in Order. But, before you have time to pull me up, Sir, I might just inform my hon. Friend that I shall not be able to give a satisfactory reply to what he is asking. The Bill. broadly speaking, will be welcomed by those who—

Mr. Bevan: Welcome it.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Yes. I do not include among those my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. Later on, I hope, he will have an opportunity of expressing his views about the public school system. Nothing would give me greater delight than to be able to cross swords with him on one or two points arising out of that, but that will not be possible now. I thank the House for the reception which has been given to the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved:
 That the Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of the Act to the undermentioned areas, namely:
(1)the Borough of Boston;
(2)the Borough of Falmouth
copies of the first of which was presented to this House on 30th April, and of the second on 6th May, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Munro.]